Retrieved from Map of World
by Jack Mullen
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come
to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you
and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse
case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it
is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
― Winston Churchill
'A
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what
have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever,
Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”'
The
State of Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that probable cause
is all that is required to search an automobile during a traffic stop.
The decision effectively ends the process of requiring a warrant to
search a vehicle unless there is probable cause and exigent
circumstances.
Further
the Pennsylvania High Court’s decision overrides Pennsylvania’s own
Declaration of Rights in State Constitution Article I, Section 8.
Article 8 stating :
“The
people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions
from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any
place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing
them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation subscribed by the affiant.”[A]
In
Contrast to the Constitution for the United States, the Pennsylvania
Declaration of Rights adds further protections stating people shall be
secure from unreasonable searches and seizures in their persons, houses,
papers and possessions. Further the Pennsylvania Constitution states no warrant shall be issued to search any place or seize any person or things without describing them as nearly as may be and without probable cause.
Contrasting with the Constitution for the United States, Article 4 of the Bill Rights states :
“The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[F]”
The
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights, is
considered to provide even greater protections of privacy than the
Constitution for the United States; “Commonwealth v. Waltson, 724 A.2d 2
89, 292 (Pa. 1998) (citing [J-5-2013] - 6 Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586
A.2d 897-98 (Pa. 1991)” [1]
The high Court acknowledged in its recent ruling :
“As
a general rule, for a search to be reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment or Article I, Section 8, police must obtain a
warrant,supported by probable cause and issued by an independent
judicial officer, prior to conducting the search. This general rule is
subject to only a few delineated exceptions, including the existence of
exigent circumstances. See Horton v. California, 496 U.S.128, 134 n.4
(1990) (“[I]t is a cardinal principle that searches conducted outside
the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are
per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few
specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”) (citations
and quotation marks omitted);[A]”
However
the court later cited Federal Government rulings stating that “exigent”
circumstances are automatically in place because an automobile or
vehicle is mobile and therefore the evidence is easily and naturally
moved when the vehicle is moved. Recent United States Supreme Court
rulings now permit searching on probable cause alone, without exigent
circumstances, even if the car were immobile or impounded.
"Liberty
lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no
constitution, no law, no court can save it." - Justice Learned hand
Thus
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, following the federal lead, carefully
crafted a legal word-salad argument building a bridge around the
Pennsylvania Constitution and its Declaration of Rights in favor of the
vastly pro-government and anti Individual rights positions of the
Federal Government and its Supreme Court.
In fact the Court stated :
“At
the outset, it is important to recognize that this Court may extend
greater protections under the Pennsylvania Constitution than those
afforded under the U.S.Constitution. However, we should do so only where
our own independent state constitutional analysis indicates that a
distinct standard should be applied.” [A]
In concluding the Pennsylvania Supreme court noted :
“no
compelling reason to interpret Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution as providing greater protection with regard to warrantless
searches of motor vehicles than does the Fourth Amendment. Therefore,
we hold that,in this Commonwealth, the law governing warrantless
searches of motor vehicles is coextensive with federal law under the
Fourth Amendment.”[A]
While
saddling up with the Federal Government, the State of Pennsylvania has
short circuited the “spirit and intent” of the Pennsylvania State
Constitution and Declaration of Rights, while ensuring the ruling cannot
be challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States.
It
is evident and abundantly clear, the Federal Government’s egregious
attack on the organic fourth Amendment of the Constitution for the
United States is consistent with an agenda of curtailing individual
liberties, while massively increasing Federal Government powers and
control over “We the People.”
This
technique of vacating State Constitutional protections to become
aligned with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the
Constitution is a means by which State Supreme courts can diminish
rights strongly protected under State Constitutions while seemingly
appealing to a higher authority on rights and Liberty.
However,
as the history of the United States Federal Government has
demonstrated, there is and has been a clear agenda to undermine the
limits and restraints on the size and scope of the federal government at
the cost of liberties and rights of Citizens of America since the
Constitution was narrowly ratified in 1790.
In Fact, since 1819 when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion in McCulloch v Maryland which
“turned the Constitution on its head”[B], limited government scholars
and advocates have realized the United States Constitution could not
hold the power and growth of the Federal Government in chains.
Government’s growth is proportional to the powers collected from its
Citizens and given the power to write law, and more specifically to
interpret laws, define authority of government branches, agencies and
set the line between the State and Federal Government’s power, the
Supreme Court has essentially unlimited power and influence over the
American union of States.
According to Bernard H. Siegan in “The Supreme Court’s Constituition":
“The
United States Supreme Court is an unusual institution for a nation that
proclaims its dedication to democratic processes. An unelected body
whose nine members have been appointed for diverse reasons, it has the
power to set aside laws that the vast majority of people support. Under
our system, the Court is considered the guardian of the Constitution;
yet that document does not not specifically empower it to exercise
judicial review over either federal or state legislation.”[B]
In
Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court is clearly interested in supporting the
Federal Government’s egregious and growing intrusions into the lives
and privacy of American Citizens. Recent revelations regarding the
extent to which Americans are being spied upon using color of Law and
ultra high tech technology, while ignoring, completely, the fourth
amendment of the United States Constitution, is clearly an ominous sign
of a serious balance of power shift away from privacy and the rights of
individuals to be secure from government intrusion to a “borg” State
having unlimited powers over the Citizen.
George Orwell once imagined :
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever” 1984
The
Pennsylvania decision was 60 plus pages of building arguments to
circumvent the Pennsylvania State Constitution: the Supreme Law of the
land in Pennsylvania. Upon reading the decision, it is easy to see the
court could have as easily and vehemently argued to support the
Pennsylvania Constitution and the 225 year history of the Law and will
of the people of Pennsylvania. In fact, Justice Debra McCloskey-Todd in
a dissenting opinion wrote:
"the
decision “heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding
protection against unreasonable search and seizure which our people have
enjoyed as their birthright."
According to Bernard H. Siegan in the “Supreme Court’s Constitution” :
“..
constitutional law, is quite frequently the rule of persons and NOT of
law -- a situation that, ironically, a constitutional system is supposed
to preclude”
Like
Marshall, ignoring the intent of the founders as recorded in the record
of the Constitutional Convention, in McCulloch v Maryland, the
Pennsylvania Justices ignored the history of the State of Pennsylvania’s
strong support of the right of privacy and due process before search
and seizure.
Pennsylvania’s
Supreme Court has effectively done a great disservice to the Citizens
of the State; Citizens depending on the Supreme Court to uphold the
Constitution of the State against encroachments by the State itself .
Pennsylvania
joins many other States saddling up with the Federal Government and the
U.S. Supreme Court’s Constitution to dismantle the rights and privacy
of the Citizens, while supporting the outrageous growth of totalitarian
power of the Federal and State Governments.
Money
and Corruption Are ruining the land Crooked politicians Betray the
working man, Pocketing the profits And treating us like sheep, And we're
tired of hearing promises That we know they'll never keep -Ray Davies :
The Kinks
Several
possible reasons exist for the State of Pennsylvania and other States
to reduce the power of State Constitutions in the area of privacy and
warrantless searches: Civil Forfeiture and the corruption of a private prison industrial complex.
Pennsylvania is ranked among the worst in the Union for Civil Forfeiture law. According to the institute for Justice :
“Pennsylvania
has terrible civil forfeiture laws. The government can civilly forfeit
property by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the property
is related to a crime and subject to forfeiture, a standard
significantly lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard required
for a criminal conviction. And property owners, not the government,
bear the burden of proof in innocent owner claims, making property
owners effectively guilty until proven innocent. Worse still, all of
the money seized by law enforcement agencies and forfeited ultimately
makes its way back into their hands. The money is first distributed to
the district attorney and state Attorney General, and, under the law,
they must use it for enforcement of drug laws. Pennsylvania law
enforcement officials take advantage of the commonwealth’s broad
forfeiture laws. In just a three-year period (2000-2002), more than
$20.2 million in currency, vehicles, real estate and other property was
forfeited.”
The
State of Pennsylvania makes a living on pirating property from captive
State residents and, as of 2011, was in the top 10 states showing
increasing prison populations year over year for the previous three
years.
Just
googling Pennsylvania and Civil Forfeiture will produce pages of horror
stories of Pennsylvania Pirates preying on property of the people.
Pennsylvania is one of 28 states with so-called ‘3 strike’ laws
mandating life sentences to people convicted of certain crimes more than
two times. These ‘3-strike’ laws are horrendously unfair and often
result in someone going to jail for life for some minor infraction of
the law. For example, let say a two time felon is stopped on the
highway and police using ‘probable cause’ is searched and a few leaves
of a marijuana plant are discovered - this guy may be heading for life
in jail for some plant he happen to have in his possession.
Even
more interesting is this fact: Pennsylvania is also listed with
Arizona, South Carolina and South Dakota as having the largest increases
in private prison populations with at least 17% more inmates in private
facilities in 2011 than in 2010. [D]
It
is easy to see why Pennsylvania has a financial interest in being able
to quickly and easily search vehicles and mobile property without the
hassle of Constitutional precautions and due process. The possibilities
for rampant corruption in a system where “probable cause” can be
manufactured at the scene of a traffic stop or other encounter with ‘law
enforcement’ and then using Civil Forfeiture and possible State
financial arrangements with a rising private prison industrial complex
- ‘officials’ and ‘public servants’ and private prison corporations
all dine at the table of stolen loot of Pennsylvania State citizens.
America
has long ago lost the protections vaguely described in the United
States Constitution, but discussed in detailed during the Constitutional
Convention, and now States are falling like Dominoes in line with the
U.S. Supreme Court’s Constitution.
The
U.S. Constitution was created with poison pills against the use of the
document for limiting the powers and scope of influence of the Federal
Government. Created as a convenience organization charged with limited
and clearly enumerated powers leaving all other powers to the States and
the People, the Federal Government is now a predatory oligarchy under
the control of a global cabal of hereditary wealthy elite intent on
enslaving the entire human family on Earth.
The
founding fathers, sympathetic to the ennoblement, enlightenment,
liberty and happiness of the common man, provided Americans with many
ways to push back against the rise of tyranny in the Federal Government
and the Union of States. States as independent Republics, are one of the
ways Americans can stand against the rising tsunami of lawlessness and
totalitarianism being exported by the Federal Government of the United
States to the States. States can take serious the importance of the
tenth amendment and using the wisdom passed on by those founding member
States refusing at first to ratify the United States Constitution
without both the tenth amendment and clarification statements given
prior to signing the Constitution.
The State of Virginia for example, reiterated that all powers granted under the Constitution are derived from the people of the States and
“may
be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their
injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains
with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination
can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the
Senate or the House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the
President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in
those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those
purposes.[B]”
States
organizing around the words of the founders during Constitutional
debates in Philadelphia beginning in 1787 as recorded in the Federalist
Papers, and other records of the Convention, can find strength and
justification for nullifying Federal Laws and “resuming the powers” only
delegated to the Federal Government which are have now been “perverted to their injury.”
Other
ways include impeaching Supreme Court Justices, it has only been done
once on the national level and at least once at the State Supreme Court
Level however, as of this writing, proceedings in Oklahoma are in
progress to impeach five Supreme Court Justices for granting a stay of
execution in a particularly gruesome murder case involving children.
[E]
If
Oklahoma can impeach five Supreme Court Justices for just a stay of
execution, Pennsylvanians can impeach six for circumventing the
established law of the State for two hundred years.
Finally,
it may be also be possible to make void Constitutional infringements
made by Supreme Court Justices when if it can be shown they are
operating illegally without having property taken and affirmed their
oath to the Constitution.
Private
Attorney General, author, inventor and defender of the US Constitution,
Paul Andrew Mitchell has shown countless numbers of court officials,
attorneys, United States Supreme Court Justices and Clerks of the
various courts have not properly affirmed their oath to the United
States Constitution and are operating as impostors.
... Power to the People, Right On - John Lennon
America
is an idea, a beautiful and powerful example of what can be done when
people are free to speak, free to act, interact, share, learn,
contribute and self organize in a natural way. America has been a
testimony to limited government, a conclusive experiment in what can be
done when people have property rights, rule of law and coercive free
markets and minds.
But,
America’s time in the Sun has passed as cartels, monopoly capitalist
using regulatory capture, legislative bribery, unconstitutional
executive orders, currency and credit scams plus Supreme Court
manipulation have perverted America into something quite ordinary;
America is now no more than a corrupt, collectivist, Oligarchy
floundering in a sea of mediocrity.
Only
by aggressively acting to take back the powers of the Sovereign States
and the powers of the People can any of the coming calamity and misery
be avoided.
The
time has come to reread the Declaration of Independence and for
Citizens of States with Constitutions like Pennsylvania that declare in
Article I, section 2 :
“All
power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded
on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness.
For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable
and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in
such manner as they may think proper.”
To alter, reform or abolish their government and begin again.
General References
No comments:
Post a Comment