Police Misconduct

Judge wants probe into Oakland police shootings


The Associated Press

Published: Friday, Jun. 1, 2012 - 7:24 am



http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/01/4531120/judge-wants-probe-into-oakland.html



Thank you Judge Henderson. I feel that reform is needed in all Police investigations. To have the Department’s internal affairs investigate their own officers is akin to having a drug smuggler investigate a drug pusher in my opinion. I feel that there needs to be groups of private Citizens selected to conduct investigations into claims of Official Misconduct made against ALL governmental employees.

I understand that such private Citizens should have a least fundamental understanding of the difference between legislatively created “civil rights” and the natural rights all People are born with. Said private Citizens could be volunteers or selected in a similar fashion as a jury with at least one person properly taught the fundamental principles of American Jurisprudence such as a Constitutional Law Professor.

Frankly, I feel that our bodies of public servants are riddled with corruption, and lack of accountability. It seems they are lacking in a proper training in ethics, and conflicts of interests. I feel the problem goes far deeper than just the Police internal affairs investigations. It appears there is a similar process in all levels of government. They investigate themselves which to me defiantly appears to be a conflict of interests between what is best to serve the private Citizens and governmental agencies and their agents.

To have members of a club or class of persons investigate members of their own club or class of persons certainly leaves the door open to cronyism, favoritism, and bias.

Our Position

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

Democracy V. Republic

Democracy V Republic



There are two forms of democracy. Both were tried and in practice before the creation of the American form of governance. There are direct representative democracies and indirect representative democracies.



In a direct representative democracy all people considered to be Citizens who meet the qualifications of participation in government have an equal say. Any and all issues concerning the laws of the land, rights, or privileges of the Citizens are set and heard in an open forum, and each Citizen is granted an equal amount of time to express their thoughts before the entire gathering before any vote is taken. The history of Athens in the 4th and 5th Century DC is an example of this form of democracy.



Trials where held in the same fashion. It was very time consuming and slow process. When an emergency arose that needed immediate attention and a response to the situation needed addressing post hast it created problems. As the debating between the Citizens and the final decision (vote) as to what action should be taken could take days, weeks, or even months to conclude. The final decision in many cases benefited the majority of Citizens in the Athenian community while the ‘private natural rights’ of the minority where ignored and abridged for the good of the whole. The minority may well have lost all their personal property and left in a state of total impoverishment for the ‘general welfare and protection’ of the whole.



Early in the 17th Century (1600s) a new more streamlined version democracy was formed in order to streamline and expedite this process. It is what is known as an ‘indirect representative democracy’. Districts were formed and the Citizens chose from within their ranks representatives to represent their districts, before the representatives of the other districts within the nation, and there was a ‘Head of State’ that had the final say in all maters.



In the event of an emergency the Head of State could by executive privilege simply proclaim a state of national emergency and by executive order declare who was going to do what, where, and when, who’s assets, and other property were going to be used to any extent they deemed necessary to assure that the ‘general welfare and protection’ of the nation was secured under the pretext of the good of the whole. This could be done in minutes with one proclamation and signature and the representatives in the districts were bond to comply and obey by the Law.



Our Republic based on democratic principals is similar but very different. It is a blending of the two forms of democratic principals and the Law governs which principal is applicable to the actions taken by our servants. First, the Law defines the People (Citizens) as the Head of State (“In our country the people are sovereign...” AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)).



• The definition of sovereign is: Sovereign. A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy. (Ref: Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition (BLD) Pg. 1395)



Sic, the natural born state Citizens in American are the Heads of State according to the Law that governs. The sovereigns that created this Republic secured all their natural rights by the Supreme Law of the Land.



Constitution of the United States (US. Const.) Article VI Clause 2 “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”



The natural rights of the sovereigns are defined as:



• Natural rights. Those that grow out of the nature of man and depend on his personality and are distinguished from those which are created by positive laws enacted by duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society. In re Gogabashvele's Estate, 195 Cal. App.2d 503, 16 Cal.Retr. 77, 91. (Ref. BLD. Pg. 1027).



These rights and others are secured by what are commonly referred to as the ‘Bill of rights’, or the first ten articles in amendment to the US Const. formally adopted and ratified in 1789, and replaced the Articles of Confederation which were adopted in 1781 after the Colonies had declared their independence from the United Kingdom (UK) which was a form on ‘indirect representative democracy’ at the time. The Monarch was the Head of State in the UK (England) and the Parliament were the elected representatives of the ‘subjects’ (citizens).



• “Under our system (American Republic Note added by Author), the people who are 'in England' called subjects are here the sovereign(s).” (U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 208)



The Laws of our Republic created several bodies of representatives to serve the sovereigns here. They are known and properly identified as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government each having their own authorities and limitations created by our Law. Our laws require that the sovereigns elect and or appoint people from within our ranks to serve us. These persons are properly known as public servants (servants).





Public servants: A person holding a government office, by election or appointment. (Ref. Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition 1975 (RHCD.) Pg. 1069)

Our system of Laws (Jurisprudence) define the obligations that our servants are to perform diligently and establish precise and strict limitations on any authority they have over themselves in each branch, between the branches, over other persons in our nation, and the sovereigns (We the People) they are to serve.



They are free to create law, rules, regulations, and policies that regulate and govern themselves within each branch without any direct involvement (indirect democracy) of the sovereigns, or persons outside their branch of government. However, they are prohibited from creating any law or rule that directly affects anyone’s rights, privileges, or immunities outside their branch of government without the express or implied consent of those affected by the rule and in particular the sovereigns they serve.



Anytime any branch of our body of servants attempt to create any law, rule, regulation, or policy that affects any private right (natural right) of the sovereigns they serve the issue must be placed on a ballot for the direct vote (direct democracy) of the sovereigns, and even these issues are regulated by law. Even a majority of sovereigns are restrained by the Supreme Law from imposing their will as a collective to force any sovereign individual, or minority to give up any natural right[s] secured by our Law. The ‘equal protection clause’ prohibits this conduct.



• US Const. Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”(Empasis added by author)



A private right is personal private property which belongs to the individual sovereign or minority involved. Our ‘public servants’ (acting in an indirect representative capacity), or the majority of sovereigns (acting in a direct representative capacity) can not arbitrarily abridge, deny, or strip away from any sovereign individual or minority their liberty to exercise a private right without just compensation. This IS the Supreme Law of THIS land.



There is no way for anyone to conclude and place a value on the ‘private right’ of a sovereign individual or minority. Sic, just compensation cannot be calculated without the express or implied consent of the sovereign[s] affected by the will of the majority of sovereigns (Mob rule) acting directly by ballot or a body of ‘public servants’ acting indirectly by arbitration.



• “Governments do not grant rights; for they are unalienable rights, which cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away...government can only secure those rights.” Butchers Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757



• ‘Legislature can name any Privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by any means other than an income tax’, ‘but legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege’.(Note: Our servants cannot proclaim a right to be a privilege and then regulate it.)



The American system of jurisprudences (Constitutional Republic ‘governed by law’) secures and protects the natural rights of individuals, and minorities from the Mob rule principals of democracy of either sort.



Jimmy Freeman

How do we fix Our Problem?

The first thing We the People need to do is ‘organize ourselves’ as private Citizens. We do this at a local level. Start a grass roots community group of concerned Citizens in your area and communicate with each other. You can do this by E-mails, Blogs such as this one which is free, meetings at a home or some other facility. Once this is accomplished communicate with other similar groups and organizations and share information and concerns.

For instance, my own private primary concerns are Taxation, and our “Civil right[s]”. Note the emphasis and capitalization used in the words “Civil right[s]”. Do you know that there is a difference between a “Civil right” and a “civil right”? Most Americans do not, and this lack of knowledge on our part is in fact capitalized on.

1. “Civil rights” are those, which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government. They consist of the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the parental and marital power, and the like. They are absolute rights of persons, the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property, as regulated and protected by law. They are the rights, which according to the fundamental principles of American government are inalienable. People v. Washington (1869) 36 C 658, 6622.

2. A “civil right” is a right given and protected by law, and a persons enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it. Nickell v Rosenfield (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P 760

As it stands today the “Civil right[s]” of many ‘private Citizens’ (Americans) have affectively been abridged by the Taxing policies of Cities, Counties, States, and our Federal government. This raises the question how has this been accomplished legally? The answer is simple. By the Rule of Law.

Once We elect officials to represent us and our concerns we need to communicate to them what it is we want them to do. ‘What is going on is that special interest groups have organized and do communicate with our elected officials.’ I assure you that in your own local community there are special interest groups that do communicate with your local officials (City, County, State, and Federal).

An example could be a local home owners association. In their community they may want new streets, water, sewer, refuse collection, or a new school in their area. So they ‘organize’, peaceably assemble, and share oral and written communications among the People that are part of the local home owners association.

As an organization they draft a ‘petition’. The petition states a cause (grievance) such as poor roads, inadequate water, sewer, refuse collection, ETC. It will name the home owners association, its members, and officers, have a date, and signatures. Someone from within the association will deliver it to your City Counsel, County Commissioners, State, or Federal representatives. This document which the home owners association has created is a legal instrument which your local officials are bound by law (Rule of Law) to consider.

Your local officials set their meeting and place the issue on its docket. The meeting is held and minutes are taken. During the meeting a few members of the ‘organized home owners association’ will be present and be allowed to express their concerns verbally during the meeting. If there is not a group of People present that stand opposed to the home owners association’s (special interest group) petition for whatever reason such as a need to levy Taxes to accomplish the home owners association’s request ‘the rule of law’ requires your officials to respond to the petition presented to them by the ‘special interest group’ (home owners association) and do what it takes to meet their (home owners) demands.

In many instances this means ‘higher taxes’ for everyone in the City, County, State or Nation. The home owners have merely exercised their rights secured by our Laws ‘organized’ and moved their elected officials to act to their own interest. This is an example of how the ‘rule of law’ works. While the majority of People in the community paid little attention to the actions of the ‘organized’ home owners association, the ‘special interest group’ has affectively used the rule of law to increase the Tax rates of everyone in the community to serve their interests which is not a crime, on their part or your officials.

The ‘organization’ has affectively used the Rule of Law to abridge the “Civil right[s]” (increased Taxes) of everyone in the community that did not take part in the governance of their community.

Now whose fault is that? Is it the ‘organized special interest groups fault? Is it the fault of your elected servants? Or is it the fault of the majority that did not participate in their own governance? In my own opinion it is like Justice William O. Douglas suggested in 1968 (See previous post this Blog Our Problem). It is a lack of organization on the part of the People themselves.

IN CONCLUSTION: We the People need to ‘organize’ to solve Our Problem!!!!!

Our Problem

“The Constitution...plainly is not adequate to protect the individual against the growing bureaucracy.... The individual is almost certain to be plowed under, unless he has a well-organized active political group to speak for him. ... But if a powerful sponsor is lack, individual liberty withers”. Justice William O. Douglas 1968

People often wonder how it is that our servants seem to dictate “Public Policy” that seems to go against what the majority of People would want done. The quote above has a clue that most People do not seem to understand. The Constitution[s] (State and Federal) provides the means for the People to elect ‘servants’, as well as provide the means to control them once elected.

When the People elect a servant they are ‘hiring a servant’. Our bodies of government are much like a business. The owners hire people to work for them. In the case of the American People electing ‘Public servants’ the People are the owners of the company (State and Federal Government) and the Public servants are their employee’s.

Once a business owner hires an employee they give their employee’s instructions as to what they expect their employee’s to do for them. Each employee in a company has a job description that defines their position in the company and what their obligations to the company and its owners are. The job descriptions authorize the employee’s to do certain things, and prohibit them from doing others.

Generally, janitors do not hire, fire, or give orders to the Stock holders, Board of Directors, CEOs, Vice Presidents, Supervisors, Safety Directors, Managers or the owner[s] of the company. This is the same way the American People’s companies (City, State, and Federal government) function. The People are the stock holders in our companies (bodies of government).

Generally the stock holders of companies advise the Board of Directors, and CEOs to manage their companies in a fashion beneficial to all the share holders. When they fail to do what is best for the stock holders they are replaced, and if the stock holders don’t hold their managers to their obligations the companies fail.

What is happening I America today is that only a few of the stock (share) holders are advising their managers as to what they want done, while the majority don’t participate any further than the election (hiring) process.

The few that are advising the managers (Public servants) of the People’s companies (government) hold interests in other ‘private enterprises’ (companies). By directing the People’s companies in a specific direction and having Public Policies (Laws, rules, regulations, tax incentives, etc.) created which is beneficial to them and their own ‘special interests’ their private enterprises are profiting at the expense of the majority of People who do not participate in the management of the People’s companies (government).

While the majority of the share holders of the People’s companies are not organized, and do not bother to instruct their employee’s (Public servants) a small fraction of the share holders of the People’s companies are. They are ‘well organized special interest groups’, that frequently assemble, discus among each other what they want done, share and publish written information, then draft petitions and have them served to the managers of the People’s companies via ‘lobbyists’.

These groups are exercising their inalienable rights secured Constitutions of the People’s companies (City, County, State, and Federal governments). The managers (Public Servants) of the People’s companies are ‘bound by the Laws’ of the companies (Constitutions) to act on the information (Petitions) they are receiving.

Hence the words of Justice William O. Douglas are true. The majority of American individuals are not well organized as a ‘unified politically active group’ with any powerful sponsor, and their individual liberty is withering. While a small fraction of the share holders of the People’s companies (governments) are well organized, and do solicit funding via various contributions to fund, and create a powerful sponsor (Lobbyists) to deliver their petitions and promote their own special interests.

If the majority of share holders would take the time to ‘unite, assemble, share oral, and written information, draft petitions, solicit funds to create and sponsor their own Lobbyists, they could regain control of their companies, as well as their freedoms and liberties.

Jimmy Freeman founder of the American People's Party

From my sheltered position

It sickens and disheartens me as I set off at a safe distance to see the People (My fellow Citizens and countrymen) on their political stumps left (L) and right (R) (sheeple (L) and lemmings (R) in my own view) firing what seems to be and endless supply of ammunition at each other. From my position in the distance I can see who is delivering their (L and R) ammo, and accepting their payments, and contractual Dept Obligations as they endlessly keep slaughtering each other for no apparent reason other than a label they have chosen to accept for themselves.

From my position at a safe distance I stand screaming at the top of my lungs ‘hey stop this senseless slaughter’, but they don’t seem to hear over all the confusion and noise. I would approach them closer but fear I would get caught in between their next volley. I guess I am a fool and a coward for concerns for my own safety, and should have the fortitude to stand up and march straight in-between their ranks. Now and then one or the other (L R sometimes both) will hear me in the distance and turn to fire at me, but I am at a pretty safe distance, with plenty of cover. Naturally, I have grown accustom to their random shots, and as I see them turn I duck under cover.

The biggest problem I have is that this senseless slaughter between the L and R seems to be spreading and surrounding my position leaving me no safe shelter, and one day I may be forced to defend my position. I will be left with no other ‘reasonable alternative’ but to stand and defend my position or simply allow myself to be caught in their cross fire. I hate the thought of being forced to fire on my own countrymen in the defense of myself.

While both sides (L and R) are senselessly (in my opinion) slaughtering each other by the drove, bankrupting themselves, pledging their property (including labor), and youth (posterity) as security for contracted Debt Obligations to those manufacturing and delivering the ammo, and other much needed supplies I can see the coffers of their (third party)‘creditors swelling to the point bursting’.

From my distant position is seems as if I see this third party (TP), promoting, inflaming, and fanning the wild fires (issues and differences in opinion) burning between those that have adopted the L and R labels. It does not appear that either the L or the R has any notion, that the TP ‘intentionally’ started the fires, are providing the funding, manufacturing, and delivering the implements needed to continue this senseless slaughter, or that they (TP) are always adding more fuel and wildly fanning the fires between the L and the R.

Thesis v. anti-Thesis = Synthesis. Synthesis = ‘swollen coffers’, anti-Thesis = ‘starting, fueling and fanning fires between L & R’, Thesis = ‘create a division (LvR)’

Sincerely
An American national Ohio state Citizen, American Loyalist, Patriot, and humble servant of the American People.
Jimmy Freeman