Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Discuss about the world and people freedom as entire.

Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Postby lostandfound » Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:27 am

Column by Lawrence M. Ludlow.

Exclusive to STR

On Saturday, January 8 in Tucson, Arizona, a man shot Gabrielle Giffords, a woman who is an executive member of a well known, brutal organization that is ostentatiously headquartered in a large number of lavish facilities in Washington, D.C. This organization is so large and pervasive that it systematically steals vast amounts of money from millions of people; rewards its servants and allies handsomely; regularly engages in turf wars with other vicious agencies and kills tens of thousands of innocent people in the process (collateral damage); forces some people to surrender honestly earned income to other people; dictates the kinds of foods, beverages, and drugs that peaceful people can ingest; forces people to “purchase” unwanted and wanted “services” from monopoly providers against their will; runs dozens of prison camps where people are incarcerated for engaging in peaceful behaviors that are forbidden to all but members of the gang; dictates where and when people can conduct business to feed their families; injects syphilis and other dangerous substances into unknowing victims; forces people to surrender their children to institutions where these children learn to obey members of the gang and also may learn some valuable skills (not very well) to make them capable of generating more wealth for the violent organization; has spawned the growth of many smaller criminal drug gangs in urban and suburban areas by making substances illegal (again creating innocent victims of those living near turf battles); and regularly engages in the systematic kidnapping, torture, secret renditioning, and targeted assassination of people worldwide.

The man who shot Gabrielle Giffords did not say if he was responding to any or all of the reprehensible practices of Ms. Giffords’ gang when he shot her. It now appears that he may have been mentally unbalanced or have felt he had another reason to act as he did. He also shot a decision-making arbitrator (or “judge”) that is employed in a related offshoot-gang of Ms. Giffords’ organization as well as an assistant of Ms. Giffords. Furthermore, he shot a number of innocent passersby – victims that would normally be labeled as “collateral damage” if the perpetrator of the shooting had been an authorized member of Ms. Giffords’ gang. These victims have not been discussed nearly as much in the state-controlled press, which serves its masters faithfully. In addition, since Ms. Gifford’s gang is in the habit of imposing a special category of more severe “federal” penalties for actions taken against its privileged members – as opposed to actions taken against the lower-status non-members – the shooter will pay a heavier price for having harmed Ms. Giffords than he will for having harmed the civilian subjects of these rulers.

Those of us who do not advocate the initiation of force or fraud are not surprised by these events. The organization represented by Ms. Giffords has “led by its own example,” and the attacker appears to have mimicked the behavior of the gang represented by Ms. Giffords when he shot her. Ms. Giffords’ gang is now considering the implementation of additional tactics to protect the hierarchy of her organization from similar attacks. This means further restricting the very few free activities remaining to the unfortunate people who live in the geographical areas currently controlled by this gang.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/member-o ... s-attacked
Last edited by lostandfound on Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

 

Re: Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Postby Shuftin » Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:13 am

I like this article, thanks.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

The Government is the People, by the People, just not ---- YOU People. - Unknown

When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content. - Niccolo Machiavelli

The old police motto of TOprotect and servehas been replaced with YOU "comply or die.”

Better ten innocent Sheeple in jail than one guilty Person on the street! Blue Wall Of Modus Operandi
User avatar
Shuftin
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:06 am
Has thanked: 186 time
Have thanks: 370 time

Re: Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Postby lostandfound » Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:00 pm

Shuftin wrote:I like this article, thanks.

Their are a few websites with the 'brass' to tell it like it is.The article was taken from a site That is near the top of the list. 8-)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

Booing the Goose

Postby lostandfound » Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:41 pm

By Jim Davies.

Exclusive to STR

Chapter 8 of my Transition to Liberty shows that I foresee the time--in the mid-2020s, for reasons it explains--when widespread civil disobedience will play a valuable part in hastening the end of the government era. It will be a period when around one in four of the population has learned what liberty means (and what government means) and so is eager to experience it and ready to quit any government job in disgust. Simultaneously and as a result of that great walkout, a staffing crisis will be crippling government. When the two come together, it's not hard to see that a lot of people are going to stop obeying all its zillions of silly laws, at the very time when the lawmakers lose the ability to prevent them. Freedom will then be only a couple of short years away; an ever-swelling "Boo!" from the long-intimidated population will increasingly shoo away those armed and dangerous squadrons of government geese.

Such civil disobedience is to be clearly distinguished from some other forms of protest, such as those against the income tax. Irwin Schiff's famous illuminated sign near the Las Vegas Strip enquired of one and all, "Why Pay Income Tax When No Law Says You Have To?" and the IRS' only answer was to get him inside a government cage for 13 years; the far simpler remedy of citing the missing law was apparently beyond its ability. Note, though: neither Irwin nor any of the others called for any law to be broken. They merely point out that none exist. Some years ago the IRS called them "illegal tax-protesters" but the rebuttal was only to move the hyphen; they are "illegal-tax protesters" and all of them would willingly pay any tax in obedience to law. The protest is not against tax, but against unlegislated tax. Accordingly, it's quite wrong to call this movement "civil disobedience." They are civil, but aren't setting out to disobey any law at all.

An example of true CD in such a context would be to refuse payment of local property tax, which (as far as I know) is always well and truly legislated. Recently in Tamworth, NH, Scott Finman has started to do just that, by declining to allow government agents inside his home for the purpose of inspection and creation of a taxable value. The "Tamworth Millionaire Program" relates what has happened so far in the story. It's a very modest house, but the Tamworth government's response was to assess it at $4 million--thereby transforming the owner into an instant quadrimillionaire. That multiplied by 40 the amount of tax claimed and billed, which of course he could not and did not pay, and so Tamworth Town has a basis for eviction. Finman publicly offered to sell the house to any member of the Town government for a "rock-bottom, bargain price of $3.5 million" so that the buyer could "flip" and sell it the next day for their own assessment of $4M and make a cool half-mill overnight, simultaneously getting this troublemaker out of town. So far, no taker. Stay tuned.

I'm not privy to the strategic purpose of these brave "Live Free and Comply" warriors, but the situation nicely illustrates the difficulty of booing the government goose at this early stage in the progression to liberty. We are too few, they are too many and too strong. If fleets of them don't fly in and SWAT the CDer, some other way will be found to nullify his action and unfortunately, at present his neighbors are going to cheer. Why should this freak refuse to pay his fair share of the Town's expenses, so making all of us pay more? We have to have good streets, and police and fire protection, and schools [sic] and trash disposal, and those all have to be paid for. Why should he be above the law? He isn't fit to be our neighbor.

I've been trying to imagine a strategy for near-term CD that would be more likely to help freedom come faster, but it's not easy. The components would have to include the following:

· the particular law being challenged and disobeyed must be unpopular
· government's retaliative ability against the CDer must be limited or hazardous
· the media must be sympathetic and ready to publicize success

All those conditions will be well met by 2025, after a decade or two of systematic re-education--but in the near term, they are hard to find. If any one of the three is missing, I fear CD will be wasted effort, for its purpose surely is to gain favorable publicity, to help ever more people see the vacuous, immoral nature of government along with the free-market alternative and encourage them to join in ignoring its decrees.

Another example from New Hampshire may meet them a bit more closely; in 2006, Russell Kanning offered handbills in the lobby of the IRS office in Keene, in exercise of his right to free speech. The bills suggested to IRS employees that they recognize what immoral work they were doing and take an early opportunity to quit. Russell was ejected and warned, but returned and continued; then he was arrested. He declined to travel to the government court, so was given free if sub-standard accommodation for nearly three weeks while awaiting his ("time served") sentence. The IRS is unpopular (Condition #1) and there wasn't a great deal the government could do against him (#2) and media reports were at least fairly neutral, if not actually positive (#3). And then, there exists the New Hampshire Free Press, of which 5,000 printed copies now regularly circulate in the State; to some extent such "Keeniacs" are building their own media.

There's no doubt that the aim is high, that such early-CD success would bring about a much more agreeable society while we necessarily wait for a complete evaporation of government. If Kanning had gotten through to IRS employees and in a fit of conscience many of them had quit, his brave example would have been quickly followed all over the country and the income tax would have fast become unenforceable. Major gain! Or if Finman succeeds in pulling the rug out from under the property tax, the same thing could happen; that other major heist would disappear, along with the youth indoctrination system that it largely funds --a huge benefit!

But unfortunately at this stage, I fear that isn't feasible. Ultimately the resolution will be in a government court, and as I suggested in "1789" recently, government courts will write on the fly whatever "law" will get government out of its pickle--exactly as always intended. There's no shortage of unpopular laws, and it may be feasible to attract favorable publicity, but that middle condition above is a killer. The only way around it I can think of is to give much more publicity to FIJA so that one (or more) in twelve of the local population gets to understand what juries are for. Such is the mindless prejudice of the voting public that even that would by no means ensure that juries acted to nullify objectionable laws, even when informed that they have the power to do so; but it would at least augment the wholly indispensable process of universal re-education.

That process of universal re-education is already rolling, so if you're not on board yet, today would be a good day to start. Without it, there is not the slightest hope of realizing a free society; whereas with it, there is not the slightest risk that government can survive the resulting walk-out of all its grunts. There is neither hope of nor need for any repeal of the forest of laws it wrote, for after losing its ability to enforce them, the resulting free society will be little other than a glorious, permanent feast of universal civil disobedience.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/booing-goose
Come to think of it, that's not a bad definition of what freedom is.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ain-murray
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

The Philosophy of Authority

Postby lostandfound » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:15 am

“Authority” is one of those words that is commonly used but less commonly understood. It may be claimed that a person has the authority to decide what to do with his own life and property, and it may also be claimed that a police officer has the authority to arrest a person who has broken the law. How does the concept of authority properly apply to these claims?

To possess authority is to possess a power: An authority may justly decide how a possession or a person is to be treated. An authority has power over all possessions and persons that are subject to his authority. But just how does an individual acquire such a power?

I contend that here is where the common understanding of authority goes astray: By not considering how the power of authority originates, it is easy to misidentify thuggery as authority. And there is a critical difference between the two.

Please note that I used the word “justly” in my definition of authority. An authority has the moral and ethical right to exercise power over whatever or whoever is subject to his power. Thuggery, on the other hand, is the exercise of power over persons and property by force. Stealing a person’s money at gunpoint, an example of thuggery, is unjust, immoral, and unethical.

I don’t think I am stating anything too controversial here so far.

So, then, the big question is this: How does an individual acquire authority? Again, keep in mind that authority is equated with justice, and is a good thing. From whence springs forth this font of just power?

Innate Authority

The original source of authority lies within each individual. Consider the phrase “All men are created equal.” What do these words mean, and how do they help us understand the concept of authority?

If all men are created equal, then no individual is innately subject to another. Everyone owns and controls his own person and therefore does not own and/or control any other. We can conclude from this that every individual has the innate power of authority over his own person, and that no individual has the innate power of authority over any other individual.

This is a very simple concept, and it explains very neatly why slavery, for example, is thuggery. The slavemaster assumes authority over another individual against that individual’s will. He may claim natural authority because of his race, nationality, or religion, but the claim is false. His actions are unjust, immoral, and unethical. His modus operandi is aggression. He is not an authority, but rather a thug.

Aggression is the initiation of—or the threat to use—force in order to infringe upon, steal, damage, or destroy the person or property of an individual, assuming that individual is not aggressing or has not aggressed against anyone else. Aggression is the main tool of the thug’s trade.

Aggression against individuals who have not aggressed against anyone is always unethical. If you disagree, please cite examples to support your claim.

If I were to stop you on the sidewalk and demand to see your identification, you would no doubt (and justifiably so) tell me to take a hike. Why? Because you don’t recognize my authority to command you? Exactly.

Would it be unjust, immoral and unethical of me to point a gun at you and force you to show me your identification? The question answers itself.

So how does a police officer, for example, have the authority to command me to do something (assuming I haven’t aggressed against anyone) if I do not grant him any authority? He doesn’t. Period. What he has is overwhelming force. Without my consent, any action he forces me to perform under threat of violence is unethical. See the previous paragraph if this seems confusing.

But society has given police officers the authority to enforce the laws of the land, you may counter. But all you would be saying is that if you collect up enough individuals, then each individual within that group enjoys more rights than any one individual outside the group. That idea cannot be reconciled with “All men are created equal,” since it is equivalent to the statement “Some men are created more equal than others.”

Well, comes out the inevitable trump card—usually slapped down on the table with great pride and satisfaction, as it is no doubt a brilliant and clever rejoinder to any individual sovereignty argument—it sounds like you do not want to belong to the society that we have set up here, and that’s fine. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of it. If you don’t like the rules here, then you are free to leave.

Property Rights and Delegated Authority

The core of this “Love It Or Leave It” argument is property rights. The assertion is that the United States government is the property owner of all the land within its borders, and it has the right to decide what the rules are on its own property. If a person wishes to stand upon government property, then he must follow the rules or else he is committing aggression against the government, and the government then has the right to defend itself against the aggressor.

The government, this assertion claims, is like a homeowner who has the natural right to exert authority over his own private property. If someone were to break into your house, you should certainly feel that you have the authority to protect your property, even if the intruder does not recognize the authority you claim. The fact that you are standing on your own property gives you the authority that flows from your natural rights to defend yourself, and by extension your property, against aggression.

And so, the theory goes, the government has delegated authority to the police officer, assigning him to protect the government property by enforcing the property owner’s rules. You are invited to stay if you obey the rules and if not, you are a trespasser and the security force of the property owner will use its delegated authority and power to defend the property owner’s land.

However.

Consider the case of an individual who kills the occupants of a house and takes it as his own. What authority does he possess in attempting to hold on to his stolen goods if someone else tries to appropriate them? Does he have a natural right to take whatever he wants by force, and does this give him the just authority to use force to stop anyone else from taking it?

No. By stealing the house, he is the aggressor. He has no rights or authority concerning the stolen house. None whatsoever.

How does one acquire property? By killing whoever is in possession of something and taking it for onesself? Yes, that could work, but would it be ethical? Would it be just? Again, I certainly hope the question answers itself.

The mafioso who claims you owe him protection money because your business is located on “his” turf has no authority over you if you choose not to give it to him. What he may have is a small army backing him up, and perhaps the wise thing to do is pay up, but are you willing to concede that he has a legitimate claim to authority over you? His claim to his turf was won through aggression and is held by aggression. He is a thug. That is all.

How did the United States government acquire the 3.8 million square miles of land it now holds? Was there someone else occupying the land before the United States government came into possession? Was the land transferred in a just and ethical manner? Does anyone remember anything about Native Americans in their history classes? About how there were millions who lived within the borders of what is now called the United States? Where did all those people go?

Thugs broke into their houses, killed them, and took their property. Mafiosos claimed their land to be part of their mafia’s “turf.”

And no, this is not meant to be a guilt trip. No, we can’t do much for those who were treated unjustly over a century ago. But the passage of time does not exonerate the criminal from his previous actions. All of the authority—the just power—that is claimed by the United States government is based upon a claim to property rights on land acquired through thuggery. This renders the claim to authority false for any individual who chooses not to recognize it.

And there you have it.

Delegated authority is always a voluntary proposition, and it can be withdrawn at any time. It is a privilege bestowed—an extension of a natural right from one individual to another. Assumed authority is thuggery.

So whenever you hear “Love It Or leave It,” or some variation thereof, what is really being said is this [sfx: a dangerous Marlon Brando voice] “Love It Or We’ll Make You An Offer You Can’t Refuse.”

I would urge all here to just please, give up the gangsta life.

Respect authority. Reject thuggery. Know the difference.

By tzo.
http://strike-the-root.com/philosophy-of-authority
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

Re: Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Postby lostandfound » Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:58 pm

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/20 ... whose.html

Liquidate Your Local Police: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Updated, August 26)




Mary Lee Cook, an 84-year-old resident of Oak Hill, Florida, didn't seem like the kind of person who would secretly cultivate marijuana behind her home. Yet on June 6, deputies assigned to the East Volusia County Narcotics Task Force materialized on her doorstep.


Diane Young, Chief of the Oak Hill Police Department, supposedly responding to an anonymous tip, had already visited the scene. Without notifying Cook or presenting a search warrant, Young had climbed a fence and taken photographs of the offending plants.

The deputies searched Cook's backyard and found a half-dozen desiccated pot plants. Although under what is advertised as the "law," this was sufficient evidence to justify arresting the octogenarian and seizing her property. In this case, however, the deputies destroyed the plants and dropped the charges.


It was her considerable good fortune that Cook was the mayor of Oak Hill, a town of about 1,500 people. She had inherited that position just a few weeks earlier when her immediate predecessor, Darla Lauer, resigned in disgust and frustration. The proximate cause of Lauer's dismay was Chief Young -- the same officer who had supposedly received the "tip" about Cook's secret marijuana garden, and had used illegal means to take photographs of the contraband.


Young was appointed Oak Hill Police Chief in 2010 by a 3-2 vote by the Town Commission; Cook (at the time a Commissioner) and then-Mayor Darla Lauer cast the two negative votes. Prior to being selected as chief, Young was the city's code enforcement officer -- that is, she was a uniformed pest issuing petty extortion demands (also called "citations") against local property and business owners. Young discovered her vocation for law enforcement relatively late in life, getting an associate's degree in law enforcement and attending the academy at the age of 48.


In her application to the Oak Hill Police Force in 2002, Young admitted to an extensive history of drug use, which included marijuana, cocaine, and quaaludes. None of those substances should be prohibited, of course, and Young was never arrested or prosecuted for her drug use. She insists that she was not addicted to drugs or alcohol, but the scope of her admitted activity suggests otherwise. That behavior should have disqualified Young for a position on the force -- and certainly should have been a deal-breaker for her appointment as chief. However, three members of the Town Commission were close personal friends of Young and were willing to approve her candidacy -- and to misplace her personnel file.


Once ensconced as Chief, Young immediately vindicated her critics. She certified one newly hired officer, Brandy Sutherlin, as "fit for duty" -- even though he failed a drug test immediately before being sworn in. Shortly thereafter, Sutherlin -- who was off-duty at the time -- got involved in a "road rage" incident in which he pursued another motorist on I-95 at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour while firing several shots at the fleeing vehicle.

At the time, Sutherlin's three young children were in the car with him, a fact that prompted a 9-11 dispatcher to demand repeatedly that he stand down.

Last February, Young narrowly escaped being removed as Chief when a motion placed before the Town Commission resulted in a deadlock, with Lauer and Cook voting to remove the Chief. Describing herself as "fed up with the corruption under the command of an inept chief," Lauer resigned and prepared to relocate to Alaska, where her husband had found work as an air traffic controller. Cook succeeded Lauer as Oak Hill Mayor just as the police department split open at the seams like a bloated carcass.



In late June -- shortly after Young apparently tried to set up Cook for a phony drug arrest --
Sgt. Manny Perez filed an affidavit accusing Young of ticket-fixing, sexual and ethnic harassment (such as grabbing him in intimate fashion and referring to him by such demeaning nicknames as "Mexican jumping bean"), and official corruption. Perez also claimed that after he expressed misgivings about Young's performance to a member of the City Commission, the Chief "initiated two (2) Internal Affairs investigations" against him.


Perez was accused of stealing gasoline and suspended from the force. The charge was later dismissed as "unfounded." However, as a condition of being reinstated, he was compelled to sign a waiver promising not to pursue legal action against Young and the city government. In an interview with NSBNNews.net, Perez described Young as a Machiavellian operator who “pits officer against officer and … gets them to do her bidding.”


Young, Perez insists, should “never have been promoted as chief or even hired as an officer in the first place since she has admitted to more than a hundred felonies” – meaning one hundred separate instances of cocaine use. The Oak Hill PD was a “sinking ship,” Perez lamented, with officers being driven out by a “coke-snorting police chief.”


On August 1, Mayor Cook finally obtained the long-pursued third vote to remove Young as Police Chief -- and as an added bonus, the Commission simply liquidated the town's entire six-member police force.


Even if we accept the unwarranted assumption that police help deter crime, we're still left with this question: Why did Oak Hill, a minuscule town in which violent crime is practically non-existent, have a police force?

While Manny Perez appears to be a conscientious individual who would make a good hire for a private security company, the department itself seemed to exist only to provide patronage jobs for the likes of Diane Young and "Gypsy Cops" such as Brandy Sutherlin -- who has been forced to leave three police departments since 2006 -- and Mike Inhken, who was hired by Oak Hill after being cashiered by the Volusia County Sheriff's Office amid charges of theft.


Almost exactly a year before Oak Hill disbanded its corruption-plagued police department, the municipal government of Maywood, California was dissolved after repeated lawsuits against its incurably thuggish police department bankrupted the city. Other small towns across the country -- such as Kilbruck, Pennsylvania; Columbus, New Mexico; Hoschton, Georgia; and Pewaukee, Wisconsin -- have dismissed their police forces, usually as an austerity measure.

Police forces -- like practically everything else -- were extravagantly over-built during the late economic bubble. Liquidation is a vital part of every economic correction, and dismantling the local affiliate of the Homeland Security State is a splendid way to begin that process. This is why everyone blessed to live in a small town should take the opportunity to share the Oak Hill story with the city council, coupled with this admonition: Go ye, therefore, and do likewise.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

Re: Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Postby Shikamaru » Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:39 am

I like the writs of quo warranto or scire facias for this purpose :).
Shikamaru
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:56 am
Has thanked: 326 time
Have thanks: 281 time

Re: Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Postby palani » Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:47 am

lostandfound wrote:It was her considerable good fortune that Cook was the mayor of Oak Hill


More accurately Cook is the municipality of Oak Hill.

From Bouvier
MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5737
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 165 time
Have thanks: 472 time

Re: Member of Violent Gang Is Attacked

Postby lostandfound » Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:15 pm

Michael Collins and the Eight Hundred Year Occupation: Did A Non-State Soldier Defeat a Global Empire on Bloody Sunday on 21 November 1920? by Bill Buppert

http://zerogov.com/?p=3351
In this celebration of Saint Patrick’s Day, we should reflect on the liberation of Ireland at the beginning of the twentieth century as a demonstration project of how it is done. Michael Collins would play a larger than life role in bringing this divorce in the court of world opinion and rubbing the English nose in it. He would be an unknown contemporary of other giants like T.E. Lawrence and Paul Emil von Leetow-Vorbeck at the turn of the collectivist century.He would stare down one of the other giants, the statist and war-loving Winston Churchill and win. -BB

“Realists appealed to Collins. There would be no more glorious protests in arms, he decided. He built a cadre of realists around him, first in the IRB, then at Volunteer headquarters, where he took over Pearse’s old post as Director of Organization before becoming Director of Intelligence, finally in Dáil Eireann, as the underground government’s very effective Minister for Finance. Collins was a doer. Essentially a well-informed opportunist with very few scruples, his entire ideology could be stated in five words: ‘The Irish should govern themselves.’”

- Sean Cronin, “Irish Nationalism: A History of its Roots and Ideology”

“The characteristics which mark Collins out as a remarkably successful Director of Intelligence during the War of Independence include his evident appreciation of the importance of the collection and assessment of information as primary elements of intelligence operations which should precede action; his partial penetration of his adversary’s own intelligence system; the efficiency and ruthlessness with which action based on good intelligence was taken; and his success in preserving the security and efficiency of his own organization both in Dublin and in Britain despite the pressures it operated under because of the constant threat of raids, arrests and the capture of documents.”

- Eunan O’Halpin, “Collins and Intelligence: 1919-1923 From Brotherhood to Bureaucracy” (in the anthology Michael Collins and the Making of the Irish State)

Introduction

Michael Collins was a tough young Irish operative during the seminal years of Eire’s final divorce from the United Kingdom at the beginning of the twentieth century. This essay will attempt to discover if Collins was the culminating point that brought Number Ten Downing Street to the negotiation table, stared down Winston Churchill and came home with the solution for Irish independence from the British Crown.

Ireland was invaded and occupied the British crown in 1169 and suffered a brutal occupation punctuated by indigenous risings, rebellions and pockets of resistance. Sinn Féin emerged in 1905 to formalize a political vehicle to liberate the Irish from the British occupation. These sophisticated rebel organizations started to emerge in the in the 19th and 20th century, culminating in the 1916 Easter Rising which led to the mismatch and overreach that would be the undoing of English rule over the Irish.

Michael Collins would emerge as the premier guerrilla leader during the crucial struggle between 1916 and 1922. He embodied the early germination of the non-state soldier as a twentieth century variation on the age-old warrior in history and fought in Ireland under a variety of covers and positions within the political hierarchy of the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB). Collins would fight for the next four years culminating on Bloody Sunday on 21 November 1920.

The Rising in 1916

During the Easter week of 24-30 April 1916, the IRB fielded the Irish Volunteers and smaller elements of Irish nationalists rose in armed rebellion in Dublin against the British crown. The violence was a tremendous shock to the authorities in London and they reacted with enormous disproportionate use of military and constabulary forces to quell the rebellion. “The British Army reported casualties of 116 dead, 368 wounded and nine missing. Sixteen policemen died, and 29 were wounded. Rebel and civilian casualties were 318 dead and 2,217 wounded. The Volunteers and ICA recorded 64 killed in action, but otherwise Irish casualties were not divided into rebels and civilians.” [1] Executions and reprisals followed and Collins started to rise in the ranks to prominence in the aftermath of the Fort Sumter of the twentieth century Irish revolution against the Crown and eventually a bloody civil war that would pit Irishman against Irishman.

An increased colonial imperial presence started to expand its reach on the southern island that was the heart of the rebellion. England was on a war footing in her third year of fighting in the First World War and troop movements and weapons availability were quite abundant for the forces deployed. The British had to invest in a counterinsurgency campaign and still had upper tier members of the military high command with bitter memories of the COIN difficulties in the two Boer conflicts fought less than a generation before.

The Rebellion in Earnest

The IRB and the other militant organizations started to realize that the war would have to be one of the classic insurgent and conducted in “suit and tie” as it were, assuming aliases and slipping through the mass base undetected. Collins would for three years hide in plain sight in Dublin and its environs posing as a businessman named “John Grace”. Great Britain would respond with one of the most slipshod and misinformed counterinsurgency (COIN) campaigns in recent history with a number of missteps that would eventually cost them the conflict and the island of Eire would eventually float out of the Dominion orbit. Some suppose that if that had not occurred during wartime, that the COIN may have had an even chance of success but the “modus operandi and outlook…had been shaped during wartime for the intelligence apparatus which required intelligence officers to cut corners, dispense with vetting procedures and cold pitch informers.” [2] The British also severely underestimated the IRB/IRA counterintelligence operations being conducted against them.

Once the British introduced the Blacks and Tans, a paramilitary police unit in concert with the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), the atrocities started to even gain attention in England and some Members of Parliament warned that the harsh treatment would lead to a deepening resistance and compel the populace to close ranks with the rebellion. Contrary to the popular media, the massacre at Croke Park in 1920 where 13 civilians died was at the hands of the RIC and some auxiliaries. Nonetheless, a critical mass of English brutality was having a measured effect on the Irish mood that the IRA took full advantage of and Collins hatched a plan to assassinate members of the intelligence organization known as the Cairo Gang headquartered in the Castle.

Bloody Sunday


The propaganda war on both sides was quite effective although one can say the Irish rebellion had an advantage between a sympathetic USA and British public becoming exhausted with the expense and the apparent atrocities starting to percolate for the unintended conflict that Great Britain had been escalating since 1919. Even Churchill grew weary in 1920: “What was the alternative? It was to plunge one small corner of the empire into an iron repression, which could not be carried out without an admixture of murder and counter-murder…. Only national self-preservation could have excused such a policy, and no reasonable man could allege that self-preservation was involved.” One can bookend this speech with one of the greatest speeches Churchill even made on 8 July 1920 concerning the British military massacres of Indians at Amristar on 13 April 1919 (also known as the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre) and his condemnation of British military excesses in the Raj, one cannot help but think he was conflating some of that brutality with what was transpiring in Ireland during the war.[3] Churchill’s reputation as one of the finest speakers in the English-speaking world gave him a platform which enthralled millions in the British public whether broadcast or read transcripted in the daily newspapers. The daily mauling of Irish civilians by British occupation forces may have started to gain more traction.

On 19 June, 1920 the commanding officer of the RIC in Listowel informed his ranks:

“Now, men, Sinn Fein have had all the sport up to the present, and we are going to have the sport now. The police are not in sufficient strength to do anything to hold their barracks. This is not enough for as long as we remain on the defensive, so long will Sinn Fein have the whip hand. We must take the offensive and beat Sinn Fein at its own tactics…If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there—the more the merrier. Should the order (“Hands Up”) not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man.” [4]

The perfect storm was emerging that would lead to the operation that would change the course of the conflict and eventually draw the British to the negotiating table to parley for a conditional settlement and peace that may free the Irish from English dominion.

Collins would strike the match that would put the British in the hazard. His “Squad” was comprised of volunteer gunmen and supporting elements that would target the Cairo Gang at Dublin Castle who were a key component of the intelligence complex the English had deployed into Ireland to quell the rebellion. The popular media has greatly exaggerated the importance of the Cairo Gang in the vast network of intelligence assets the Crown had deployed but the propaganda impact coupled with what would happen within hours of the assassination would force the British government to find a solution the IRB and indigenous Irishmen would agree to.

“Shortly after eight in the morning, [Collins’ men] converged on eight different addresses in Dublin. Nineteen soldiers, one or two of them probably not agents, were roused from their sleep and shot.” [5]

Of these, thirteen were killed and six wounded according to official reports. When Collins would hear the news, he would say: “Good God. We’re finished now. It’s all up.” [6] This was not the blow the popular media makes it out it to be ands tends to be exaggerated. This was a propaganda blow but had a relatively minor operational impact from an intelligence perspective.

“In hindsight, Collins’ operation, although executed with imprecision was a shock to British intelligence but quite limited in scope. The IRA succeeded in eliminating only a small fraction of the legion of British intelligence operatives, although there is no question that a few of those assassinated were among the more experienced and aggressive operators. At the end of the day IRA gunmen killed seven confirmed intelligence officers, two legal officers, one informer, and two Auxiliary temporary cadets, while wounding four more suspected spies.” [7] Collins blow would nonetheless have far-reaching effects that would happen just that afternoon.

The day was not over as the bloody-minded British Blacks and Tans and some associated constabulary possibly seeking revenge opened fire at the football pitch in Croke Park that afternoon by killing 12 civilians and maiming hundreds of other players and spectators in what would become the Croke Park massacre that would even upset the British government at the ferocity and brutality of the attack after the stinging rebuke Churchill had spoke against mere months before in the Parliament during General Dyer’s trial for the Indian massacre.

Conclusion

A mere two years later in December 1921, the Irish would get their independence after almost eight hundred years as a mostly unwilling vassal of the United Kingdom. This would spark a vicious civil war between two competing factions that would be long and bloody. Collins would be assassinated himself in his personage as the military commander of free Ireland by a rival Republican faction in August 1922.

Collins was an able commander and essentially one of the first successful non-state soldiers of the twentieth century although T.E. Lawrence may tangentially take the laurel for being a state soldier commanding an entire army of non-state soldiers in WWI during the British fight against Turkey in the Middle East. One must entertain the counterfactual that had Collins not struck such a blow and reaped the unintended windfall of English brutality and callous disregard for human life at Croke Park that same afternoon if the Commonwealth may have remained intact.

“… [G]iven time, strength and public support, the British forces could have reduced rebel operations to negligible proportions. Nevertheless, these quintessential conditions were missing. While the IRA survived, political pressure on the British government increased and though the balance was tantalizingly fine, the IRAS held out longer than the government’s nerve. That was what mattered.” [8]

Collins survived and went toe to toe.

Collins was at the right time and right place to take full advantage of English missteps and capitalize on the unintended profit from Churchill damning the military brutality by Raj forces in India resulting in thousands of civilian deaths and maiming. Many forces were starting to coalesce to include the post-WWI exhaustion of Britain, British financial woes and the consolidation of Irish guerrilla forces under a capable and effective leadership. The combination of ruthless efficiency, political stellar alignments and the sheer exhaustion of the British public with the conflict most likely tipped the balance for Collins and his confreres.

A single day in which both the protagonists swung at each other may very well have set the conditions for Irish freedom.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFM7Ty1EEvs


http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/05/paren ... r-old-son/
http://www.infowars.com/cops-taser-deaf ... ic-attack/
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

Re: The Philosophy of Authority

Postby lostandfound » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:59 pm

lostandfound wrote:“Authority” is one of those words that is commonly used but less commonly understood. It may be claimed that a person has the authority to decide what to do with his own life and property, and it may also be claimed that a police officer has the authority to arrest a person who has broken the law. How does the concept of authority properly apply to these claims?

To possess authority is to possess a power: An authority may justly decide how a possession or a person is to be treated. An authority has power over all possessions and persons that are subject to his authority. But just how does an individual acquire such a power?

I contend that here is where the common understanding of authority goes astray: By not considering how the power of authority originates, it is easy to misidentify thuggery as authority. And there is a critical difference between the two.

Please note that I used the word “justly” in my definition of authority. An authority has the moral and ethical right to exercise power over whatever or whoever is subject to his power. Thuggery, on the other hand, is the exercise of power over persons and property by force. Stealing a person’s money at gunpoint, an example of thuggery, is unjust, immoral, and unethical.

I don’t think I am stating anything too controversial here so far.

So, then, the big question is this: How does an individual acquire authority? Again, keep in mind that authority is equated with justice, and is a good thing. From whence springs forth this font of just power?

Innate Authority

The original source of authority lies within each individual. Consider the phrase “All men are created equal.” What do these words mean, and how do they help us understand the concept of authority?

If all men are created equal, then no individual is innately subject to another. Everyone owns and controls his own person and therefore does not own and/or control any other. We can conclude from this that every individual has the innate power of authority over his own person, and that no individual has the innate power of authority over any other individual.

This is a very simple concept, and it explains very neatly why slavery, for example, is thuggery. The slavemaster assumes authority over another individual against that individual’s will. He may claim natural authority because of his race, nationality, or religion, but the claim is false. His actions are unjust, immoral, and unethical. His modus operandi is aggression. He is not an authority, but rather a thug.

Aggression is the initiation of—or the threat to use—force in order to infringe upon, steal, damage, or destroy the person or property of an individual, assuming that individual is not aggressing or has not aggressed against anyone else. Aggression is the main tool of the thug’s trade.

Aggression against individuals who have not aggressed against anyone is always unethical. If you disagree, please cite examples to support your claim.

If I were to stop you on the sidewalk and demand to see your identification, you would no doubt (and justifiably so) tell me to take a hike. Why? Because you don’t recognize my authority to command you? Exactly.

Would it be unjust, immoral and unethical of me to point a gun at you and force you to show me your identification? The question answers itself.

So how does a police officer, for example, have the authority to command me to do something (assuming I haven’t aggressed against anyone) if I do not grant him any authority? He doesn’t. Period. What he has is overwhelming force. Without my consent, any action he forces me to perform under threat of violence is unethical. See the previous paragraph if this seems confusing.

But society has given police officers the authority to enforce the laws of the land, you may counter. But all you would be saying is that if you collect up enough individuals, then each individual within that group enjoys more rights than any one individual outside the group. That idea cannot be reconciled with “All men are created equal,” since it is equivalent to the statement “Some men are created more equal than others.”

Well, comes out the inevitable trump card—usually slapped down on the table with great pride and satisfaction, as it is no doubt a brilliant and clever rejoinder to any individual sovereignty argument—it sounds like you do not want to belong to the society that we have set up here, and that’s fine. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of it. If you don’t like the rules here, then you are free to leave.

Property Rights and Delegated Authority

The core of this “Love It Or Leave It” argument is property rights. The assertion is that the United States government is the property owner of all the land within its borders, and it has the right to decide what the rules are on its own property. If a person wishes to stand upon government property, then he must follow the rules or else he is committing aggression against the government, and the government then has the right to defend itself against the aggressor.

The government, this assertion claims, is like a homeowner who has the natural right to exert authority over his own private property. If someone were to break into your house, you should certainly feel that you have the authority to protect your property, even if the intruder does not recognize the authority you claim. The fact that you are standing on your own property gives you the authority that flows from your natural rights to defend yourself, and by extension your property, against aggression.

And so, the theory goes, the government has delegated authority to the police officer, assigning him to protect the government property by enforcing the property owner’s rules. You are invited to stay if you obey the rules and if not, you are a trespasser and the security force of the property owner will use its delegated authority and power to defend the property owner’s land.

However.

Consider the case of an individual who kills the occupants of a house and takes it as his own. What authority does he possess in attempting to hold on to his stolen goods if someone else tries to appropriate them? Does he have a natural right to take whatever he wants by force, and does this give him the just authority to use force to stop anyone else from taking it?

No. By stealing the house, he is the aggressor. He has no rights or authority concerning the stolen house. None whatsoever.

How does one acquire property? By killing whoever is in possession of something and taking it for onesself? Yes, that could work, but would it be ethical? Would it be just? Again, I certainly hope the question answers itself.

The mafioso who claims you owe him protection money because your business is located on “his” turf has no authority over you if you choose not to give it to him. What he may have is a small army backing him up, and perhaps the wise thing to do is pay up, but are you willing to concede that he has a legitimate claim to authority over you? His claim to his turf was won through aggression and is held by aggression. He is a thug. That is all.

How did the United States government acquire the 3.8 million square miles of land it now holds? Was there someone else occupying the land before the United States government came into possession? Was the land transferred in a just and ethical manner? Does anyone remember anything about Native Americans in their history classes? About how there were millions who lived within the borders of what is now called the United States? Where did all those people go?

Thugs broke into their houses, killed them, and took their property. Mafiosos claimed their land to be part of their mafia’s “turf.”

And no, this is not meant to be a guilt trip. No, we can’t do much for those who were treated unjustly over a century ago. But the passage of time does not exonerate the criminal from his previous actions. All of the authority—the just power—that is claimed by the United States government is based upon a claim to property rights on land acquired through thuggery. This renders the claim to authority false for any individual who chooses not to recognize it.

And there you have it.

Delegated authority is always a voluntary proposition, and it can be withdrawn at any time. It is a privilege bestowed—an extension of a natural right from one individual to another. Assumed authority is thuggery.

So whenever you hear “Love It Or leave It,” or some variation thereof, what is really being said is this [sfx: a dangerous Marlon Brando voice] “Love It Or We’ll Make You An Offer You Can’t Refuse.”

I would urge all here to just please, give up the gangsta life.

Respect authority. Reject thuggery. Know the difference.

By tzo.
http://strike-the-root.com/philosophy-of-authority


http://www.youhavetheright.com/home/A%2 ... onment.pdf
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2151
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 303 time
Have thanks: 185 time

Next

Return to End of America

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
suspicion-preferred