|
|
25 Sep 2004 @ 15:51, by gsosbee. Legal, Justice
I brought suit against the fbi to stop them from the painful and horrendous assaults employed against me in their efforts to silence me from reporting their crimes. The following excerpt from the court's decision in my case states the law of the land as currently upheld by the United States Supreme Court (which refused my simple request for a preliminary injunction to stop the assassins of the fbi from a continuation of their hideous campaign which continues to date uninterrupted for almost seven years); the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals , ninth Circuit , stands at once as a disgraceful monument to United States government corruption and as a pronouncement of things to come to the people of all the world under the NWO ; the decision seen below (and also reproduced in its entirety at www.sosbeevfbi.com ) is dated 7-23-01 and is affirmed by the highest court in the land on 10-1-01 (see 534US894):
" The district court did not err in dismissing Sosbee's claims against the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the individual defendants in their official capacities because agencies of the United States and federal agents in their official capacities are immune from suit for constitutional violations."
Sosbee writes:
The population of the earth must be told that the torturers/terrorists of the fbi/cia are now reaching into their homes, work, and play with the same outrageous and unacceptable authority/intention as that implied above and that, unless stopped now, great suffering of astounding proportions will ensue for generations to come at the direction of the fbi/cia and their operatives.
_________________________________________________________
Note: the latest country to submit (under the auspices of the global terror threat) to fbi oppressive rule and to the law of nwo as set forth in www.sosbeevfbi.com is Australia; human rights watchers must be more vigilant there.
news:FBI to establish base in Sydney
ABC News via Yahoo! Australia & NZ News - Sep 21 10:15 PM
The New South Wales Government says the placing of an FBI officer in Sydney will be a major step forward in improving the flow of global intelligence to the state.
-------- ----------- ---------------
See Also:
Torture Warrants and Law: Justifying Torture and
Making it Legal?
Rosemary Horton, P.L. Duffy Resource Centre,
Trinity College, Western Australia
[link]
See also:
[link]
__________________________________________
For more information regarding the NWO implications of fbi/cia global criminal enterprizes, see my article dated September 19, 2004, entitled:
Nations lose their character and soul to fbi/cia murderous tyrants
----------------------------------
See:
[link]
________________________________________________________
For more on the police state from a credible source, see the article dated and titled as follows:
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Message From A Desert Storm Paratrooper
at:
[link]
----------------------------------------------------------
A method for fbi to seize assets at will:
[link]
|
|
|
|
 31 Jan 2003 @ 15:23, by ming. Legal, Justice
Most of our societies are based on the "rule of law". Which works out to be about the opposite of how I think things should be. The rule of law is essentially that some rules are written down and agreed upon, and everybody will be equally forced to follow the rules. That is usually presented as a reasonable alternative to everybody just doing whatever they feel like, which would be perceived as a chaotic anarchy.
The problem is that lawmakers don't know how to write down principles of social behavior, or they're really just trying to enforce their own moral biases on everybody, so they end up writing huge volumes of detailed rules about how people are supposed to behave or not behave. And invariably they leave a lot open to interpretation, and they forget to think about many contexts where those behaviors aren't necessarily what works, and they end up with a self-contradictory mess. Which makes it a good business to be a lawyer, and those people who can afford more lawyers than others would tend to be more able to get what they want.
Now, the people who actually enforce laws will tend to hide behind the word of the law, and will tend to have the attitude that they're just carrying out the law, or they're just following orders. In other words, they're not responsible. That is by design, by the division of the powers of government. But it is also what usually turns governments into such unfeeling monsters. Lawmakers can sit in confortable chairs and make rules, without having to soil their hands with involvement in the actual circumstances where those laws might or might not work. Police forces will carry out the laws, using force, potentially lethal force. Nobody's really responsible. Different people make the laws than who interpret them than who carry them out.
There's a lot to say about all of this. My first point, however, is that personal responsibility would be a better fundamental principle than would institutionalized irresponsibility. In other words, if the police officer stops you for speeding, or for taking too long zipping up your pants in the public bathroom, he'd better be able to defend why that was the right thing to do right then. Not whether the law told him so or not, but why it served a useful purpose right then and there. Judges who condemn people need to be thoroughly exposed to that which they condemn them to. I.e. attend their executions, or visit them in prison. And politicians should have to face all of that, to experience on their own skin the consequences of their laws. That would be a good first step.
What really ought to change is the inherent insanity in making volumes of laws that are just 'good ideas' but that really don't work in all circumstances in real life. A law says that certain things ALWAYS must be a certain way, and that this will be enforced. Somebody makes a law that says 'nobody's allowed to drive faster than 55mph'. Might sound like a good idea, as it sounds more safe, and it would save gasoline. But then later on somebody thinks 'what about the police or firetrucks?' and maybe they change the law to have an exception for police or firetrucks, or maybe everybody implicitly agrees that it of course wouldn't apply to them. Why not? Any law that has any kind of exceptions is a bad law. What about if I have a medical emergency and need to get to the hospital? What if I drive 75mph and nobody else is around for miles? What if there is some urgent need that you didn't think of spelling out in the law? Its the law that is bad. What it is really trying to accomplish is that people are safe while driving, but it tries to do it by applying the same numbers to everybody. What would rather be needed would be a guideline, a general principle, and some people to carry it out who actually would be responsible for their own choices. There should be nothing to hide behind. More >
|
|
|
|
26 Feb 2002 @ 16:05, by ming. Legal, Justice
Bushman brought up this article by Butler Shaffer who teaches Law. Very interesting discussion about property in general, and whether you legally speaking own yourself. The short answer is "No, you don't". Obviously, your government would not be able to regulate what you eat and how you behave if they didn't own you. Legally speaking you're living in a system of nationalized slavery. Also very interestingly, he points out how every political system is defined by how property will be controlled in the society it proposes. More >
|
|
|
|
12 Feb 2002 @ 21:48, by ming. Legal, Justice
Ah, finally a sensible proposal about intellectual property, from somebody who might actually make it happen. Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, and a number of collaborators are proposing a new type of licensing terms that allows artists, writers and programmers to give their work to the world while still keeping some controls over how it will be used. Something between copyrights and public domain. As the article suggests, this can very well be called a legal insurrection. Lessig is also the author of "The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World". More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 |
|
