 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I can still offer information, to be read, or not read, understood, or not understood, accepted, or rejected.
A case in point concerns the meanings of two words:
1.
Sheriff
2.
Marshal
Returning here:
Posse Commitatus
Side-bar: There is another part of the Constitution that is important to recall when considering the role of posse comitatus in the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law and subsequently in the post-Civil War Reconstruction, which represent two conflicting applications of the concept of posse comitatus. The relevant part of the Constitution is Article IV, Section 2, reading in part: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due...”
Note: Debt Slavery in modern terms, our present reality, includes such things as Students failing to pay back Student loans and the employment of the so called LAW to connect to those Students and act upon those Students on behalf of those claiming to be victims?
Who stands with any true authority concerning any claim by any presumed to be innocent human being (people, person, peer, innocent one) who claims to be a victim relative to any presumed to be innocent accused human being (people, person, peer, innocent one) in any case whatsoever whereby a Record will be Recorded so as to work toward gaining an accurate Record of who is, or who is not, guilty of any injury to any innocent person, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Note: There is no references made by me as to any resort to punishment at all, up to this point in time.
Who stands with any true authority concerning any use of violence upon anyone in any official, authoritative, manner?
1.
Defensive actions that may be forced into violence by the aggressor
2.
Aggressive violence authorized as aggressive such as the often repeated propaganda in MOVIES exemplified with the phrase "License to kill"
Returning:
Posse Commitatus
Now you have all you really need to know about posse comitatus. I have lots more time, so there is more that I am going to say—when have I ever forgone the chance to talk! By the way, the emphasis on the slide is added by me.
Also, note that the Navy, including the Marines, are not cited in the law. However, I believe that Naval authorities have agreed that the law does pertain to the naval service as well. I am not aware of any time in US history where naval units were called upon to form up as members of a posse comitatus. Marine elements have been called upon by federal marshals. For example: April,1867, four companies of Marines (Brooklyn Navy Yard, NY) assisted revenue officers in raids on illegal distilleries in Brooklyn; March, 1868, Marines again seized and destroyed a number of illicit distilleries near the Navy Yard in Brooklyn. And Marines were called out to deal with domestic problems even after the enactment of the Posse ComitatusAct.
Note:
The use of the term federal marshals is interesting considering the facts recording in history concerning the meanings of the words Federal and Anti-Federal, whereby the so called Federalists were pushing for, and eventually gaining, a Consolidated Government Monopoly Power, complete with a National Debt produced from the production of Fraudulent Paper Money.
Why is the term "federal" being used when the actual fact of the matter is that the actual POWER is not a competitive, voluntary, federated UNION, the POWER is instead a non-competitive, involuntary, NATIONAL UNION POWER.
What is the difference between "federal marshal" and a mere Sheriff?
What happens when a Sheriff moves to regain control of a "Public" Armory while a "federal marshal" is blocking access to that "Private" Armory?
Who paid for the devices stored in that Armory which is either/or a "Public" or a "Private" Armory?
In the case of Shays's Rebellion (so called) the duty bound (bound by the duties of free people as declared or recorded in a court of record known as The Declaration of Independence) to defend Liberty against criminals who took over the POWER of government, turning a voluntary defensive government into an involuntary offensive criminal government, there were no "federal marshals," impeding access to the Massachusetts Armory by the Revolutionary War Veterans such as Daniel Shays who may have been acting as a voluntary Jurist/Sheriff impromptu?
I don't know, I was not there, but people where there, and the left bread crumbs of information in the Record that did not become the "official" Record recorded by the Victorious Aggressors who CRUSHED the effort to regain Liberty in Massachusetts.
The American Revolution's Final Battle
"During the bitter winter of 1786-87, Daniel Shays, a modest farmer and Revolutionary War veteran, and his compatriot Luke Day led an unsuccessful armed rebellion against the state of Massachusetts. Their desperate struggle was fueled by the injustice of a regressive tax system and a conservative state government that seemed no better than British colonial rule. But despite the immediate failure of this local call-to-arms in the Massachusetts countryside, the event fundamentally altered the course of American history. Shays and his army of four thousand rebels so shocked the young nation's governing elite—even drawing the retired General George Washington back into the service of his country—that ultimately the Articles of Confederation were discarded in favor of a new constitution, the very document that has guided the nation for more than two hundred years, and brought closure to the American Revolution."
My copy:
"Washington, Knox, and Bowdoin may not have taken these words seriously. But others did. To them,the people's obligation to "throw off" destructive and tyrannical governments not only was clear, but it had been further sanctified by the thousands who fought and died for the Revolution. It had become a sacred trust, a moral imperative, an "indispensable duty" as Judge William Whiting put it."
Note: These words, in that source, were the words recorded in The Declaration of Independence.
So, there are no Federal Marshals assembling volunteers (or conscripts) to defend the Armory from volunteers (no such thing as conscripts) who seek to regain control of the THINGS that they (the volunteers) paid for and held in TRUST in the Armory.
Now back to here:
Posse Commitatus
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press,1971, defines Posse Comitatus in the following manner: “L. force of the county. The body of men above the age of fifteen in a county (exclusive of peers, clergymen, and infirm persons), whom the sheriff may summon or ‘raise’ to repress a riot or for other purposes; also a body of men actually so raised and commanded by the sheriff.” The first quotation of use is dated 1285. An extensive history—over 700 years and only misunderstood for about the last 50 years!
Even the western films have done a good job of representing the common law practice: when the town bank is robbed and the sheriff dashes into the bar and announces he is forming a posse, everyone who can ride and tote a gun is expected to join up—and the posse races out of town chasing the villains! That is posse comitatus, US style.
The use of the word posse to mean a gang or group, such as used by city gangs or drug lords does not follow from the history of the phrase; it is an unauthorized and incorrect application. But such is the use of language: it does not follow logic or law.
US style? Meaning the corporate entity known as United States or is the intended (informed, intelligent, thoughtful, willful) meaning such that there are many Constitutionally Limited Republics joined into a voluntary union or Federation of Sovereign States whereby common law, trial by jury, and government of the consent as declared in The Declaration of Independence is the meaning intended?
This:
From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Whose arms are stored in the Armory?
Who paid for them?
Who is accountable for those arms in the Armory, how are those arms in the Armory kept from falling into the hands of enemies (foreign and domestic) of voluntary associations, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, peace, and moral use of useful things such as defensive arms?
Maj. George S. Patton, Jr. wrote paper, November 1932, after dispersal of Bonus Marchers, that
represented the older attitudes. Entitled “Federal Troops in Domestic Disturbances,” similar in tone
and substance to Dowell’s manuals of the 1920s; reminiscent of late 19th century military works on
civil disturbance. Paper argued that, if gas was ineffective against a mob, the troops should open fire;
from nearby buildings sharpshooters should pick off mob leaders. Quotes: ‘Always fire for effect...If
you must fire do a good job—a few casualties become martyrs, a large number an object lesson.’
Patton also believed that breaking up the mob was the main Army objective: ‘When a mob starts to
move keep it on the run, but always leave it a line of retreat—a cornered rat will fight desperately.’ If
any rioters resist, ‘they must be killed.’ Troops guarding buildings were urged to establish a deadline
beyond which rioters would be shot. ‘Be sure to kill the first one who tries and leave him there to
discourage the others.’ Concerning legalities, Patton believed that ‘an armed mob resisting federal
troops is an armed enemy. To aid it is treason. This may not be law, but it is fact. When blood starts
running law stops, because, by the fact of bloodshed, it has demonstrated its futility.’