They knew that the kids were downstairs by themselves(because we found out that she was staking out the house for a little while prior to the raid) and when they broke into the house, they pointed very large machine guns at Alexander (age 6) and Isabella (age 2). Ms. Keeku said "that they were the ATF and could do whatever they think is necessary.
From David R. Olofson:
Click here for .pdf file.
 |
| Candice Marie Olof... |
| Hosted by eSnips |
A new phase of his ordeal begins tomorrow. While we go into the weekend to celebrate American Liberty and Independence, the federal government will be persecuting one of ours, a man who has never committed a true crime or act of violence. He and his family will be suffering in ways most of us cannot imagine.
It's obscene.
Some of us will be watching. His safety while in custody should now be our primary focus and concern.
[These esnips widgets don't display properly in some browsers, but ought to work.]
12 comments:
Nothing like abuse of citizens rights to make the ol' blood boil.
Again and again and again!
C.H. is right!
Secret Freedom Fighters....
I'm sure its too late now but she should have called police and filed a report wanting to file charges for, forceful entry or whatever charges could be filed for that unlawful action.
I'm sure a civil lawsuit on the children's behalf would be settled out of court because ATF knows no jury is going to buy into needing to put MG's in a 6 and 2 year olds face.
2. never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
This is proof positive -- for the Nth time -- that gun laws and "reasonable restrictions" are NOT intended to prevent violent crime, and neither are those who enforce them. The system is intended to filter out those who don't conform in small, very specialized ways -- for now. It's conditioning, and practice.
Get ready, boys and girls. I don't know when, but the SHOE WILL DROP.
Ms. Keeku, I think, has opened herself to prosecution. If not now, then at the American Nuremberg Trials in a few years.
"Nuremberg II".
The bad thing about suing these parasites is that they don't pay; we do, since the government uses its "volutarily" confiscated tax money to pay.
The guilty parties need to be punished by whatever means after this. This is tyranny. It's sick. I'm Never going to prison for a malum prohibitum. Never.
A World War II journalist described an uneasy truce between American and German occupiers across a narrow river. Each side waited for orders, or for an attack by the other. For days, it was quiet.
The commanding German officer got into the habit of swaggering to the riverbank and urinating in the direction of the Americans as a gesture of contempt.
After a few nights of this, an American sniper shot him dead. The next day the Germans went on the offensive with many lives lost on both sides.
What's the moral?
Behave like an officer and a gentleman, and there's hope for peacful negotiations. Act the swine and be slaughtered like one?
An incident basically between two individuals can precipitate a sh--storm from all directions?
Don't ask me, I just read the thing.
There’s an inherent problem with the system. (By this I don’t mean “one,” problem, I’m just giving an illustration of this particular problem.)
The problem is this: If a government agent engages in criminal tortuous conduct, the citizen’s recourse is to present their evidence to the prosecutor for that specific jurisdiction. On the federal level, that would be the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorney for that venue.
The U.S. Attorney’s client is the United States Government – not the citizens of that particular area. Since the U.S. Attorney and DOJ represent the United States, there is little likelihood –absent numerous eye-witnesses and several videotapes of the incident – that anything will happen with any criminal complaint against a government actor other than it being placed in the “round file.”
At the same time, the U.S. Attorney and DOJ are responsible for defending civil actions against the United States.
Considering this system, how likely is it that the DOJ will actually investigate crimes against the citizenry when they are charged with defending any subsequent civil action?
I have for years advocated a simple change to the system. That change goes something like this:
Attorneys are officers of the court. A citizen takes their evidence of a crime committed by a government agent to their attorney. The attorney reviews the information, and if he or she feels there is enough evidence to bring charges, they take the evidence directly to the grand jury. If the grand jury determines that there is merit to the charges, they can issue grand jury summonses to interview witnesses and/or obtain and review records, or can simply return a true bill. If the grand jury finds that there is no merit to the charges, they simply return a no bill.
When and if the grand jury returns a true bill, the government then pays this attorney the same amount that a DOJ trial lawyer gets to prosecute the case. Since the DOJ will be defending the action, the conflict of interest is eliminated.
I tried long ago to get some interest from some alleged patriots to help try to advance legislation that would allow for grand jury access by non-government attorneys. Logic should dictate that there would be no opposition to this modification of the system – if the grand jury system is truly just. If the system is actually fair – and the grand jury is actually run by the foreperson instead of government lawyers – no one will have a reason to complain. The only reason that anyone would oppose this change would be to acknowledge that it’s true that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
Assuming that the government actually allows, by a waiver or sovereign immunity, a civil lawsuit to proceed against the government, it will typically take a decade and well over six figures to see the case to completion. This is clearly not justice. And how many people can afford the time and money to achieve “justice” in this system? (That’s why I’m always amazed that so many people advocate that people “sue the bastards” when some person of average means is screwed by the system. Few people can even come up with the funds to even retain a lawyer for the typical civil rights action. And the ACLU and other purported civil rights watchdogs typically won’t take the kind of cases that we might read about here on WOG.
If government agents are doing their job, and not trampling the rights of citizens, they should have nothing to fear by this proposed system.
I’d like to see this proposal submitted just to see who yells the loudest. It would likely never prevail, unless it was by referendum or amendment, but you can bet that civil “servants” would likely revert immediately to being “servants” instead of our masters if there were actually criminal repercussions to their criminal behavior.
Incidentally, I worked on a case where there was documented perjury by a government agent, and others where there was documented felonies perpetrated by government actors. The judges couldn’t see any crime, despite the documentary evidence. Something needs to be done. If not this, I’d like to see other proposals. But after wasting over 10 years of working to wake people up, and after discovering that most people just don’t care, I have little hope that things will actually ever change for the better.
Ned
Ned, that would fit into my idea of only paying judges when the government side loses the case.
May we have a pic of MS. KEEKU? For wall of shame use only, of course.
Post a Comment