1. When did it become illegal to “approach a barrier”, and why is a barrier set up one whole block away from somebody’s home? Public streets and sidewalks are just that, and it has been declared by our Supreme Beings in Judicial Robes that actions such as these are illegal. There is nothing in law which gives the Secret or any other Service the lawful authority to enforce such restrictions. Or if there is, it must be one of those “unpublished” laws, which has also been previously ruled unconstitutional. Barack Obama is not yet King, nor is he God, so his presence anywhere is insufficient justification for violation of the rights of all other citizens.
2. U.S. Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said "There are probably hundreds of people a day who are in, near or at that checkpoint (around Obama's house) who have a weapon in their car that they're not supposed to have.” How can this be? This is Chicago, where guns have been illegal to own for many years. If nothing else, now we know that even the Secret Service recognizes that anti-gun laws do absolutely nothing to deter citizens who rightfully ignore unconstitutional law or, especially, those with actual criminal intent. That being so plainly demonstrated, why do we still allow Daley and others of his ilk to continue to abridge our rights? Why do we allow the continuance of criminal action by Daley and his kind? (DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW - Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Approaching the Barrier
Carl S has some comments about the incident with the prominent Chicago family member:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
18 USC 242 is a good one, but, unfortunately, it contains the phrase "on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race", so it doesn't apply to garden variety deprivations of rights.
18 USC 241, "Conspiracy against rights", has no such limitation, however.
false.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
"It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim."
read your own link, just scroll down to 242:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm
"This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law ... on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race."
Public streets and sidewalks are just that, and it has been declared by our Supreme Beings in Judicial Robes that actions such as these are illegal.
Which SCOTUS case was that, David?
What's the significance of the "Judicial Robes" comment?
I hope you're right, Jonathan. That wasn't my reading of the language of the statute, but I'm no expert at legalese.
Nimrod, I asked Carl S to comment on this--he indicated he's tied up right now but will try to answer you asap.
Post a Comment