August 14, 2018

By Whom is “Due Process of the Law” Administered?

Pulling the “Due Process” card is about as effective as whipping out the old adage…”I have a right…” I’m guilty as are most all others, only due to ignorance I suppose.

I got thinking more about this Due Process issue after reading an article this morning by Maine Senator Eric Brakey published in the Maine Wire. The foundation of Brakey’s piece is rooted in a proposed “Community Protection Order” legislation that effectively would allow for the “unconstitutional” confiscation of “weapons” from anyone the “court” deems as a possible “problem” and/or suspect to violent behavior. What could possibly go wrong?

What’s wrong with this political ideology rolled into a bill proposal is that it smells terribly of what many of us like to refer to as the violation of “Due Process.”

Brakey writes: “…a gun confiscation order may be issued “ex-parte,” which means without any notice. No due process. No opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law.

With gun confiscation orders, you are only entitled to learn your rights have been stripped away when the SWAT team comes to your door to “collect” your guns.”

What is Due Process? Is this some magic protection act that ensures that nothing will ever go wrong? Is Due Process as effective as any other element of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?

According to Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Due Process is as defined in brevity: “The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.” (emboldening added)

Written by James Hirby and published at the Black’s Law Dictionary website, we read: “Law Enforcement & Protection American criminal justice, a powerful engine of public safety and social control, operates under a balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive. The three aims of government stated in the preamble are relevant to criminal justice: (1) ‘establish justice’ – establish courts of law and other means to allow individuals to pursue justice when conflicts arise; (2) ‘insure domestic tranquility’ – create the means to suppress riots, prevent crime and secure public safety or order; and (3) ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’  Order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society yet often conflict with one another.” (emboldening added)

Isn’t this all simply subjective idealism open to abuse by anyone with money and power to upset this “balanced constitutional system?” If order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society, then what happens to order and liberty when those two subjective terms no longer fit some or all of our political narratives or social ideals? Due Process be damned!!

While it is easy to claim the rights to Due Process, it is equally easy to claim the rights to keep and bear arms and the freedom of choice as to how to defend me, my family, and my property.

Due Process of the Law is nothing more than precisely what it says. Subjective idealism pounded into our brains from birth wants to incorrectly tell us that Due Process protects us from tyrannical laws (oppression) and that some mythical “balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive” guarantees us that we are protected.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

Due Process is nothing more than carrying out the laws created by our governments. We have so many terrible arguments and excuses of how the governmental entities have no right to make unconstitutional laws, yet we ignorantly cherry-pick only those bits and pieces of the Constitution that fit our own narratives, failing to understand that Congress can “make all laws which are necessary and proper” (Article I Section 8) in order to exercise the power they gave themselves when they wrote the Constitution. Congress will and does simply craft yet another law because they have the power to do so and as such render Due Process useless. It is THEIR Due Process, not yours or mine.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

What may have been your grandfather’s “Due Process” doesn’t even carry the same DNA as today’s Due Process and at the rate things are changing and that “balanced constitutional system” gets more and more out of whack – to those with sense enough to see it – we have as much hope remaining to cling to Due Process as we do the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional article that might stand in the way of the Global Power Structure.

Due Process is a subjective matter and was designed as such. Due Process is as much as society will tolerate and the government can get away with. Even though society believes that the Constitution gives them Due Process and that this “balanced constitutional system” works, they are wrong. We even constantly hear of those screaming to get out and vote in order to get those wanting to upset that “balanced constitutional system” (rigged) out of office and replaced with another clone/drone and yet, nothing ever changes. Oppression and tyranny march forward in a slow and methodical pace, hidden behind a shroud of watered-down constitutional rights and due process.

Invoking Due Process is a worthless instrument. So long as Congress “makes all laws which are necessary and proper” and voting in new blood doesn’t change anything, then we are left with but one choice – continue to convince ourselves that we are guaranteed Due Process, along with all those other “rights” meted out by men for slaves.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!

 

 

Share

Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions

Yesterday I posted a notice about the intent of Maine lawmakers to introduce a bill disguised as a “Community Protection Order” that will “Prevent High-Risk Individuals” from possessing firearms.

Some may say the intent of the proposed legislation is a good idea and perhaps that is true to some extent. A serious argument can be made as to whether such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment as well as Due Process.

But forget about that for a moment.

Much of the problem with any of these laws is that interpretations of definitions are left up to a court and the arguments of lawyers. That, in and of itself, should alert us immediately to serious problems.

The crux of this proposed legislation is centered around “mental illness” and/or a person’s propensity toward violent and emotional behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of these conditions is a matter of a person’s perspective. Do we really want to limit Due Process based on the perspective of a judge?

LD 1884, is the Maine proposed bill which is the matter of topic. I’ll go ahead and post what this legislation uses for “definitions” to help understand the intent of the law and offer comments after.

§ 401.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1.  Community protection order.   “Community protection order” means a written order signed by the court that prohibits and enjoins temporarily, if issued pursuant to subchapter 2, or on an extended basis, if issued pursuant to subchapter 3, a named individual from having a firearm in that individual’s custody or control or owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.
2.  Family or household member.   “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.
3.  High-risk individual.   “High-risk individual” means an individual who presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual and:

A.  Has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication but has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or
B.  Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual for the purposes of this chapter. As used in this subsection, “mental illness” has the same meaning as in section 3318-A, subsection 1, paragraph B.

4.  Restrained individual.   “Restrained individual” means an individual who is the subject of a community protection order.
Community Protection Order – Of note here is that this order can be issued in one of two ways – either as a temporary order by a court that has determined that an individual fits the bill’s criteria of being barred from having anything to do with a gun, or the same conditions on an extended basis once again according to the interpretation of the court of Subchapters 2 and 3.
The title of this order is designed to mislead the public into thinking this is the will of the “community” a communistic term and that it is for the purpose of keeping that “community” safe from those with a “mental illness.” After all, all those with a “mental illness” are mass murderers…right?
High-Risk Individual – This is where things get really dicey. A “High-Risk Individual” is here defined as someone who a judge thinks (his perspective of course because there are no real definitions for this condition) is going to hurt himself or another person. In addition to this perceived condition, this person has a “mental illness” – again an interpretation based on biased training or thinking/ideology. Once a court decides for themselves a person has a mental illness they must then decide whether they think this person has been taking their medications as prescribed by some quack doctor.
The suggestion here is that if a judge, having decided you have a “mental” condition, deems that you haven’t demonstrated “a pattern of voluntarily and consistently” taking your pills you lose your right to self-protection and due process.
Part B of this section is a real doozy! If it is shown “through evidence” (wink-wink) that actions by any person with a court’s definition of mental illness can show a “reasonable belief” that such a person has a disposition toward “violent or emotionally unstable conduct,” then they will be issued a Community Protection Order – perhaps ostracized for life.
The real joke is when the authors of the bill attempt to mislead the voters by saying just because a person has a mental illness, and has been “released from” a nut house, so long as they are being good brain-dead zombies and taking their chemicals, doesn’t necessarily mean they are a threat to the valued “community.” RIGHT!
History has shown us that it is most often a needless task to keep “mentally ill” people institutionalized and pumped up or down with chemicals and is a drain to that valued community, so they are gathered up and murdered. After all, these valued communities cannot be bogged down and given bad images from anyone with a “mental illness.” They MIGHT pose a threat, real or imagined, to their way of life. Society decides who lives and who dies.
Restrained Individual – Once you have met all the criteria that the “Community” has determined using their own standards of measurements, including societal tolerances, political ideology, and in general operation under the fear instilled in them by actions of a fascist governmental regime, the lucky winner becomes labeled as a “Restrained Individual.” How fortunate.
Whether you agree with the intent of the proposed bill or not shouldn’t matter once you consider how such fascist laws, put into play by willing and eager totalitarians, are a serious threat to any society that still deems itself to be free.
Giving power to the Courts and to governments to make decisions based on highly abstract and illusory definitions is quite akin to National Socialism. If you don’t fully comprehend National Socialism then you haven’t been paying very close attention.
There are channels that already exist in which efforts to control a deranged person from committing mass murder. If the information given to the public about the shooting in Parkland, Florida is at all truthful, then the lesson to walk away with is that those with authority to have intervened failed in their jobs. Insanity tells us to make more fascist laws that will not and cannot be enforced will somehow make a difference.
But this problem is not endemic to Maine. Since the Parkland, Florida shooting many state governments and the Federal government have proposed laws that are similar that leave the interpretation of what determines a mental illness, propensity to violence, or emotional unstableness up to the courts and the governments. Even fake Second Amendment advocates have stood firmly behind such insane legislation.
With each passing day, it amazes me more and more the eagerness of totalitarian useful idiots to help tie the noose that will one day be their demise. In the days of Marx and Stalin, when these two were finished using those that helped bring them to power, they just murdered them to get them out of their way.
So what’s happening to you today?
Share

We Now Enter a New Phase of Gun Confiscation

*Editor’s Note* – I received this email from Grass Roots North Carolina

Gun Confiscation Courts to be Proposed

You read that right. Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham), a former judge, whose April appointment to the NC House filled a vacant seat, is looking to turn North Carolina into California—but not regarding sunshine and fad diets. In short, Morey will be proposing the establishment of “firearm restraining orders” (FROs) in our state. An FRO would be issued as a result of an “exparte” (emergency) hearing, where a judge can authorize the seizing of a private citizen’s guns where no crime has been proven (no guilty verdict delivered), and in fact, even where no arrest has taken place. Most likely, the proceedings will be allowed to take place even in the absence of the accused. This means the accused citizen cannot face his accusers, nor defend himself through counsel or otherwise. This is a serious violation of fundamental Constitutional due process rights.

A First Amendment Analogy
One could liken an FRO hearing, and subsequent confiscation, to accusing a reporter of so-called “hate speech,” and then, once the accusation is made, an emergency hearing is held without the presence of the accused reporter. The hearing could result in a ten-day gag order being placed on the reporter, barring the reporter from speaking (or reporting) until a primary hearing. So, the reporter’s First Amendment rights are suspended—absent any due process! In the case of Second Amendment rights, even if the accused’s firearms are returned after ten days, there is nothing to prevent the police from having registered them with the BATFE. Moreover, the accused will still be out thousands of dollars spent on the ensuing legal defense—that is, only if the accused can afford it in the first place.

No Pretense, Just Straight-up Confiscation
FROs are not a foot in the confiscatory door. There is no pretense here. FROs blatantly and aggressively kick that door down, and once FROs are in place, the valid reasons for establishing an FRO against an individual will surely loosen. At first, perhaps close family members and a few others very close to a person may be able to point a finger and “report” him. That’s bad enough, but be sure, the already Orwellian rules surrounding FROs will surely expand. It’s likely that, eventually, virtually anyone in a person’s sphere will be able to accuse a person and begin the unconstitutional process of having the accused’s legally owned firearms forcibly confiscated. Does this sound like a free country to you, a free state?

Will Republicans Protect the Citizenry?
As of now, we don’t know how the Republican majority in Raleigh will react when asked to establish a gun confiscation mechanism. We do know that there is always danger that politicians will stick a finger in the air and just “go with the flow,” as the anti-gun crowd aggressively pushes to not “let a crisis go to waste.” There is real danger here. We need to inform our representatives that we will not allow them to rescind our Constitutional due process rights. Free, law-abiding citizens are to remain free, and we will not tolerate being punished for the crimes of another.

Share

Maine State Senator Davis: Lessen the Punishment for Hunting Over Bait

It’s a beginning I guess! Maine Senator Paul Davis has introduced LD 1816, an amendment that will lessen the punishment for hunting over bait.

Earlier this year, the Legislature, after making changes to a bill that came out of committee, passed LD 1083, that would, after a second offense, make the offender ineligible, for life, to buy a hunting license. No other similar legal offenses carry such draconian measures. Sen. Davis doesn’t believe “the punishment included in the new deer baiting law fits the crime.” I completely agree.

Now, what is it going to take to get the Maine Legislature to revisit the illegal law they passed last year where they opted to punish hunters and fisherman more than any other group if they were caught destroying private property – in this case, “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557 states that, “The hunting and fishing licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled previously in cases involving “unconstitutional animus” that you cannot punish one group over another for a similar crime. While the SCOTUS has tiptoed around cases where state’s rights and “sovereignty” are involved, under no other cases decided by the SCOTUS have they wandered very far from the ruling that regardless of whether a state thinks it has a right to make laws, they cannot inflict biases, especially social ones, against one group over another.

As one example, in U.S. Department of Agriculture vs. Moreno, Congress attempted to pass a law that would deny “hippies” Food Stamp Benefits. Members of Congress openly admitted their intent of this law was because of their refusal to accept “hippies” as part of their idealistic social existence. Regardless, SCOTUS said no. This unconstitutional animus, in essence, violated Due Process.

I applaud Sen. Davis’ desire to correct a disparate law that hinders due process while at the same time targeting hunters, but someone in Augusta needs to step up to the plate and correct LD 557 that destroys the due process allowed under the U.S. Constitution through unconstitutional animus. All licensed hunters and fishermen should be incensed that the Maine Legislature would specifically and unequally target these two social groups for punishments that are held in reserve to other preferred groups.

If the Maine Legislature corrects this problem, as they should, they must then correct LD 557.

Share

Should Maine Licensed Hunters and Fisherman Help Landowners Clean Up After Being Targeted for Undue Process?

So, let’s get this straight. I just received a press release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife seeking volunteers to help clean up trash, etc. on land owned by private individuals “to secure access to private land for recreational use and show your appreciation for Maine’s landowners.” Maybe licensed hunters and fishermen should seriously consider whether helping out the landowner who just screwed them over is in everyone’s best interest.

The Maine Legislature recently passed a bill, which unjustly targets licensed hunters and fishermen for extra punishment if caught harming signs and other private property. If you create the same damage and are not a licensed hunter or fishermen, there is no extra penalty for said crime.

One can understand the frustration of a landowner who is tired of replacing damaged signs or other property, but to specifically target one group is unlawful and until attention is brought to this travesty passed by the Maine Legislature, why should any licensed hunter or fisherman help out a landowner who just saw to it that you would get doubly screwed over for breaking the same law as an unlicensed person?

Sorry, landowners. I have always supported the rights of landowners and will continue to do so. I will not stand ignorantly by while I am unjustly targeted for extra criminal penalties for committing the same crime as an unlicensed person. Until that law is changed, and intelligent landowners step forward to change this law, licensed hunters should send a message.

But, they won’t!

Share

Maine Passes Bill That Unconstitutionally Targets Hunters and Fishermen

This is a tough one to address because I do not, in any way, shape or form, condone the destruction of anybody’s property, including “Posted” or “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557, with amendments, has passed the Maine Legislature that, in summary, states: “The hunting and fishing
licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

There should be laws that protect a landowner from such destruction, and there probably are. Piling on to prove a point, while it might be a bit understandable, particularly to a frustrated land owner, cannot be justified by targeting a specific sector of the general public to punish that group for a law violation more than any other member of the public that is not part of the hunting and fishing community.

Even in testimony given in support of the law, a landowner states that he believes the majority of sign destruction comes from “hunters” shooting up his signs, but also admits destruction of his property, other than just signs, is being carried out by many different individuals and groups of individuals. Is it then constitutional to increase punishment on one group over others? I think not!

I’m not a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this law is not right. I am surprised that the Maine Legislature, the Governor, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others supported this law and could not see that it violates the constitutional rights of licensed hunters and licensed fishermen.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for a dismissal of lawful punishment for the willful act of property destruction, protected by Maine law. However, in order to be justified in taking away the licences of hunters and fishermen for one year, then one must ask what is the punishment for the same kind of destruction that might be carried out by a snowmobiler, an ATVer, a hiker, a berry picker, etc.?

I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case a hunter or fisherman, is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.

As a society we have been programmed to believe that the more draconian our laws are the more of a deterrent it is to prevent the crime in the first place. Whether that is true or not, I do not have the data to show one way or another. All drivers of automobiles that violate the law by speeding, are subject to the same set of laws and punishments. Would it be considered the right thing if hunters and fishermen were targeted for greater punishment because somebody believes them to speed more than other groups or individuals? This is what this new law allows.

This bill needs to be repealed and a different, constitutional approach taken in order to protect the rights of all people to ensure equal protection under the law, due process and to stop the obvious discrimination this law allows.

 

Share

PLF sues Corps of Engineers for First Amendment retaliation against Duarte Nursery

Today, after the federal court granted leave to file an amended pleading, Duarte Nursery, Inc., and its president, John Duarte, filed this amended complaint against the United States and the Corps of Engineers, to add a claim for First Amendment … Continue reading ?

Source: PLF sues Corps of Engineers for First Amendment retaliation against Duarte Nursery – PLF Liberty Blog

Share

Day 38 – No Executive Orders

DISHONEST!

Day 37 and Barack Obama has failed the American people. He lied and has yet to make public the details of his fake signing of 23 executive orders claiming he would control gun access and ban assault weapons. Nothing posted on the White House website regarding his executive orders on gun control.

quills

Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage is expected to speak during his weekly radio address about gun rights and at the same time urge Congress to put its focus on mental health rather than lawful gun owners.

I’m still not sure what it will take to wake this nation up to the realities around them. Perhaps this bit of information will rattle a few of you awake.

According to an article written by Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D., veterans are receiving notices from the government that they have been determined to be either physically and/or mentally “incompetent” to take care of personal affairs, including owning a gun. One such letter read, in part, as follows:

A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).

Has our government merely disregarded any “due process” when it comes to life, liberty and property? Evidently. Is there no criteria, established by law, that a judge or jury can use in determining a person’s ability to fend for themselves and/or own a gun for protection and sport?

My God! WAKE UP!

Another article written by Jim Shepherd and posted on Outdoor Wire, delves into a bunch of “what ifs” as it might pertain to efforts to disarm Americans through rewording of laws to cloud the interpretation of those laws. In that article it states the following:

California already has legislation that allows police to confiscate any firearms owned by people once qualified for firearms ownership but subsequently disqualified. These two measures are only two of the most blatant attempts to make firearms illegal-and allow officials to legally seize them from their owners.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, California already seizes as many as 10,000 guns per year under their “once-qualified” provision.

California is believed by some to be the model or testing grounds used by the ruling class as to what they want to see the rest of the country like.

Share