Monday, September 21, 2009
"Contempt of Cop"
(Please note corrections below.)
"The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife," insists sociologist David Bayley, who apparently couldn't explain why the typical tax-feeder isn't the sharpest blade in the cutlery drawer.
One suitable example is the specimen who ruined what was an otherwise pleasant drive to northern Idaho last Friday night (September 18) -- a fellow whose finely honed sense of unearned privilege coexisted with an intellect whose acuity was roughly the same as that of a rusty butter knife.
North Idaho vista: One view of the countryside near Lapwai, Idaho.
I was part of a small group traveling to the tiny but beautiful village of Potlatch, where I was to give the keynote address at the Liberty Roundup, a forum featuring candidates for state and congressional offices.
My friend Scott Watson was behind the wheel, my wife Korrin and our seven-month-old son in the backseat. We had just passed through Lapwai when we caught the dreaded sight of running lights in our rear-view mirror.
Scott pulled to the side of the road onto a shoulder that proved too narrow to accommodate the donut-burner as he went through the familiar shakedown ritual. Thus instead of approaching the driver-side window, the officer -- a member of the Nez Perce Tribal Police Department -- tapped insistently on the window next to me.
Yeah, I'll bet that this is going to go really well, I thought grimly to myself as I rolled down the window.
"What's your hurry?" began the officer, reciting directly from the big book of police cliches in a voice heavy with affected heartiness.
"I'm not in a hurry," Scott said in a composed but slightly annoyed voice, reflecting his commendable dislike of being patronized.
"Well, I have you going 72 in a 55," the officer continued in the same contrived tone. (This was untrue; we were in a 65 MPH zone, as the GPS on Scott's dashboard demonstrated.) He then asked where we were headed, then paused while Scott busied himself procuring the required documents. The officer then cast a glance around the interior.
"Oh, and I'll need to see ID for the passengers as well," he said casually.
Here we go, I thought.
"Why is that necessary?" I inquired in a level, formal tone.
"Because I told you so," the officer said with a slight edge to his voice, as if that settled the matter.
"I'm going to need a better reason than that," I explained in the same tone I had previously used.
During the pause that followed, I saw the officer's lips compress in frustration and color begin to flood the part of his face that was visible.
"The Idaho State Code requires that citizens present identification when ordered to by a law enforcement officer!" he hissed. "If you'd like, I'll bring the Code book and show you!"
"Yes, that would be nice," I said blithely, handing him Korrin's driver's license and my official state ID card (but not my license).
The officer (who made a point of keeping his badge, and thus his own identification, out of view) collected the paperwork.
"You just helped your friend get a ticket," he grunted in my direction as he turned toward his
A few minutes later the officer's voice was heard behind Scott's car:
"Mr. Watson, would you step out of your vehicle? I want to speak with you for a minute."
Scott -- an exceptionally level-headed fellow -- shook his head and let out an exasperated sigh as he exited the car.
"What is he doing with Scott?" Korrin asked me.
"He's back there playing some kind of alpha-male game," I replied, predicting that he'd find some way to do Scott a "favor" in expectation of Scott's submissive gratitude.
To Scott's considerable credit, he remained utterly stolid in the face of the armed stranger's posturing. When he came back to the car, he was even more disgusted than he had been when he left -- even though he brought the welcome news that he was not getting a ticket. As he handed our ID cards back to Korrin and me, Scott related the conversation to us.
"The first thing he asked me was, `How do you know William Grigg?'" Scott reported. "I told him, `Will is a friend of mine.' Then he said, `Well, you tell him that next time he encounters law enforcement, he'd better cool it!' Then he said that I wasn't going to get a ticket because I had been `cooperative,' but warned that there were two state troopers between here and Lewiston and that they'd stop me if I went as much as three miles over the speed limit, so I'd better be careful."
The old train station in Potlatch, Idaho, scene of the post-Roundup barbecue.
Of course, the officer lied when he promised to show me the section of the Idaho State Code supposedly requiring passengers to produce identification, as I expected him to.
I didn't press the matter as forcefully as I could have because, after all, I wasn't the driver; I was willing to push back hard enough to make a point, but didn't want to cause further trouble for Scott.
The officer also lied when he said that his demand was backed by statutory authority. There is no section of the Idaho State Code that authorizes law enforcement to demand identification from a passenger in a vehicle, or the typical citizen on the street.
"A peace officer can require a person to display ID in a bar, or from someone who is driving a motor vehicle," explained Sgt. Clarence Costner of the Payette County Sheriff's Office in reply to my inquiry. "Officers can also check ID when there is probable cause of some kind that leads to an investigation of a crime -- for instance, there's been a burglary in a neighborhood, and someone might fit a suspect description. And of course, they can check ID on a consensual basis, the same way they can carry out a search."
However, Sgt. Costner emphasized, "there is no physical law that says people have to display ID on demand unless they're driving a vehicle."
"What about a passenger riding in an automobile?" I specified.
"No -- you don't have to display ID as a passenger; only as a driver," repeated Sgt. Costner.
Locke defines tyranny as power exercised beyond right. The officer who demanded my ID was acting as a petty tyrant. Had he threatened me with arrest for refusing to produce it, he would have committed a crime specifically defined in the Idaho State Code: Title 18, section 703
provides that "Every public officer ... who, under the pretense or color of any process or other legal authority, arrests any person or detains him against his will ... without a regular process or other lawful authority therefor, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
The presumptuous intrusiveness of the officer who stopped us reflects a martial law mindset: Like most law enforcement officers, he sees himself as a caste apart from, and set above, the "civilian" population, and thus empowered to command submission from us.
More to the point: He sees himself as possessing innate authority, rather than authority derived from the law. He is the law, at least in the theater of his small and otherwise uncluttered mind. Note how his idea of a legal warrant is the phrase, "Because I told you to."
My polite but pointed rejoinder was based on the tacit but clearly understood question, quo warranto? -- By what authority are you making this demand? This dispelled the officer's pretense that he is somebody to whom reflexive obedience is due, as opposed to someone whose authority -- such as it is -- must be considered derivative, limited, and conditional.
Sure, the officer succeeded in securing cooperation through a lie. But the frustration-inspired threat of collective punishment -- "You just helped your friend get a ticket!" -- and the impotent warning, delivered from a safe distance by way of my friend Scott ("tell your friend he'd better cool it!") give some indication, I suspect, of how deeply this encounter injured the officer's unearned sense of self-regard. Most acts of lawless police violence are committed in the service of that self-image, which is endlessly reinforced through training and peer socialization.
In 1992, amid a growing scandal provoked by a wave of criminal violence committed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, an investigation was conducted under the leadership of James G. Kolts, a conservative Republican retired L.A. County Superior Court Judge who had been appointed by Ronald Reagan.
The resulting 358-page "Kolts Report" described a department that behaved in a manner largely indistinguishable from the conduct of a Third World death squad: Beatings, extra-judicial killings, planting evidence, robberies, and other undisguised criminal actions were commonplace; they almost always went unpunished, and were often rewarded.
One particularly notorious deputy, Paul Archambault, was a serial killer with a badge; in two different instances he gunned down unarmed and harmless people, the first time actually stopping to reload before commenting, "he's still moving" and unleashing a second volley.
On one occasion, as sheriff's deputies pumped round after round into a man named Hyong Po Lee following a pursuit, one San Jose police officer who witnessed the event commented to another: "We just observed the sheriffs execute someone." In the year prior to the formation of the Kolts Commission, there were several instances in which deputies back-shot unarmed people; none of the shooters was ever disciplined in any way, let alone prosecuted.
Summary execution was not the only distinguishing activity of the LASO's under Sheriff Sherman Block. In April 1989, a man named Demetrio Carillo was seized and beaten after he rebuked deputies for driving on the sidewalk near his home -- one of many to face summary "street justice" for "mouthing off." Deputies were taught by Field Training Officers how to falsify official reports to justify an arrest after the fact when the real purpose of the arrest was to punish anyone who refused to display the required deference.
"This is the worst aspect of police culture, where the worst crime of all is `contempt of cop,'" observed the Kolts Report. "The deputy cannot let pass the slightest challenge or failure immediately to comply. It is here that excessive force starts and needs to be stopped."
The endless parade of abuses inflicted by police on citizens who fail to display the required docility testifies that this " aspect of police culture" has replicated itself nation-wide. In the company of my wife, our infant child, and a close friend, I encountered it just north of Lapwai, Idaho last Friday night. Things could have turned out much worse. Next time, they probably will.
In the original version of the article, I mistakenly identified the officer who figured so prominently in this story as a deputy in theNez Perce County Sheriff's Department. I'm grateful to Violet Harris for her help in following up on this story.
Be sure to listen to Pro Libertate Radio each weeknight at 6:00-7:00 PM Mountain Time, on the Liberty News Radio Network.
On sale at Amazon.com.
Dum spiro, pugno!
at 12:35 PM
Labels: martial law; police abuse
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
'"You just helped your friend get a ticket," he grunted...'
Wow, quid pro quo in action.
Still waiting for all those "good apples" who get such a bad name from the "few bad ones", to rise up and start purging this shite from the ranks of their professional peers.
The silence is truly deafening.
Mel Gibson played the part of a petty criminal in his 1998 movie 'Payback'. In one scene, after he had just been roughed up by two corrupt NYC detectives, Porter (Gibson's character) picked himself up from the street and mumbled something to the effect that "If I were any dumber I would have joined the force too" while unclenching his fist revealing a police badge he had just lifted from one of the cops.
Will should throw that in as a gratuitous YouTube extra.
The fact that this deputy, unknown to you, recognized you, means that most likely your photo, or your name at least, has been circulated statewide to this class of thugs.
(A word derived from the Hindi 'thuggee' meaning crocodile, a carnivorous animal that lies in wait hidden below the water to lunge at and tear to pieces unsuspecting people who venture too close.)
Please be careful. Your writings are obviously a thorn in their side. They are probably just waiting for any excuse to 'do' you. I would recommend never traveling alone - always have a potential witness with you. You might be as docile as possible, it would not matter - you have already defied their 'authoritah' by your words on this site.
Not a week (hardly a day actually) goes by now without reading another story about police being found not guilty.
way to go! a few points.
it's funny to hear cops say you have to show ID. one could always fire back "does the govt mandate that i buy its ID?" and if not, "then why would it pass a law saying i have to show ID?" and then there is the SC decision saying you only have to provide your name.
lastly, for those calling for state rights and secession...you'd still be stuck with the kind of people in will's article. and even worse, nothing to keep them in check besides your gun, if they have not already confiscated them.
it might behoove every one to buy their state's motor vehicle law books. you never know what having the right knowledge, at the right time, can do for you.
that link takes you to idaho's traffic and criminal laws.
Yes, without the "Thin Blue Line", anarchy would breakout nationwide and our society would cease to exist within two weeks. NOT!
Something I wrote years ago:
One morn I traveled with my chums,
The weather warm and dry,
Our conversation turned lighthearted,
Time merrily drifted by.
We enjoyed some pleasant miles,
And deemed ourselves alone,
Then noticed far behind us,
A hastily pursuing form.
He gained on us rapidly,
Few moments had but passed,
'Til we found him intently staring,
As he came abreast of us at last.
He motioned me pull over,
My heart it nearly died,
After considering our situation,
I reluctantly complied.
He strode deliberately towards me,
Affected my befuddled brain,
Sensed my fear and loathing,
Seemingly enjoyed our obvious disdain.
It emboldened his demeanor,
His deadly weapon in full view,
I felt his power o’er me,
Suddenly unsure of what to do.
Woeful tales heard in my youth,
Through my memory ran,
My anxiety was on the rise,
Of the dreaded Highwayman.
He queried my identity,
And our final destination,
Then explained our detainment,
Which multiplied our consternation.
As I and my fellow travelers,
Considered some quick escape,
He firmly demanded tribute,
And we recognized our fate.
Gazed I into his rapacious eyes,
Resistance briefly contemplated,
But realizing his force was greater,
I peacefully capitulated.
With arrogant laugh and sneer,
He exited in quite a hurry,
Made off with his ill-gotten gain,
Out hunting further quarry.
His departure left us wondering,
Could have we successfully ran?
Is there some unknown refuge,
From the dreaded Highwayman?
Aye, this yarn is sad but true,
An example of modern tyranny,
When out on yonder roam,
Beware of this well-traveled treachery.
So, hearken! my fellow denizen,
Pray you shan’t see what we all saw,
When we heeded not the Highwayman,
Nor his odious seatbelt law.
It's going to cost some money to start with, but it is essential that EVERYONE who values life, liberty, and property equip their cars with camcorders to record ANY encounters between soldiers of the Fat Blue Line Gang and themselves. These camcorders are now small enough to easily conceal in inconspicuous places throughout the vehicle and can be positioned to record panoramic views, including front and rear views ahead of and behind the vehicle (here is one example of the technology). See this example of how one courageous young man used this technology to rid his town of a blue-clad criminal scumbag with an even bigger ego and more violent demeanor than the scato-cephalic liar that Will and Scott Watson encountered.
Will, you should take Lemuel up on his advice and be VERY, VERY CAREFUL! Your brilliantly written exposes of the Police State's crimes, as well as your passionate defense of liberty, have attracted a very large following that has the Powers-That-Be in a state of well-justified panic. On the bright side, this demonstrates more clearly than anything else that you're making a difference!
The fact that the badgethug used William Grigg's full name does not prove that he knew who he was, though it is a distinct possibility.
The fact that the badgethug said "You just helped your friend get [extorted.]" is merely a proof that his actions weren't about upholding an arbitrary statute. His actions were about upholding his ego.
that video was something else, but the responses by the folks (who were probably cops) are just amazing. it was like, "excuse his behavior...it's the kid's fault! he baited him....blah blah blah."
yeah, we should all get the means to record our encounters. radio shack has such equipment. i would suggest internal and external microphones at the least. that can be done for under 100 bucks.
Yeah, Will ID is still a 'Good Ole Boy' state especially up north in the rural areas.
I recently read an article by Dr. Stephen Baskerville about an unemployed father, jailed for inability to pay his indenture (a.k.a., in state speak - child support) who was beaten to death by jailor's after being incarcerated (debtor's prison) for inability to pay.
A wonderful country we live in isn't it? There is no constitutional prohibition the state isn't willing to violate.
Maybe you got off lucky . . .
Sic Semper Tyrannis
I am truly shamed after reading your post, "Contempt of Cop." I cannot imagine standing up to these doughnut burners, even to the slightest degree, especially with my children in my car. To put it bluntly, I am afraid. I am less afraid of what might happen to me than what may happen to my children should the armed tax collector decide I am unfit to live, or at the very least unfit to remain outside prison. The last thing I want is my children to be "parented" by the state.
Recently, an 70ish neighbor of mine was awakened at 5am (on opening day of dove season here in So Cal) by FIVE LA Sherrifs firing shotguns not a hundred feet from his front door. They drove onto his property and parked right in front of his house, stumbled out of their trucks, drunk off their arses already, and started shooting! The owner retrieved his own shotgun and went outside and informed the off-duty cops to cease and desist, only to have two of the cops level their guns at him and tell him to get back inside..."if you know what's good for you," adding that they'd be back to settle things once and for all if the old guy felt the need the need to call the local sherrif or file a complaint.
They informed him that they were LASO and that, basically, they could hunt and shoot wherever they wanted to...regardless of the fact that they were off-duty, trespassing, hunting illegally on private property, and two counties away from their own.
The old fella was pretty shaken as he related the story to me and I could see that this event had really changed his view on cops in general.
Alas, it only reinforced what many of us already know.
And the 'head master' of the Idaho law enforcement academy, one Jeff Black, is the guy who allowed the statement, "Don't suffer from PTSD, go out and cause it!" to be painted on an assembly room wall.
One does not need to wonder why Idaho police officers act in such ways. They are taught from their professional infancy.
In 1996 or 97, Boise had 7 officer related shootings in a year. One small town reserve cop was heard by numerous witnesses to say, "if they don't respect us, they'll fear us"....
Just goes to show you what they thought then...and how it's carried on through the intervening years.
This story only reinforces what we all know about law enforcement.
What's this? Two whole days and not a single moronic anti-Mormon comment from "sic semper dufus"?
Wil, I was shocked by the reaction of one of my "liberal" acquaintances to your piece. He said:
"When Grigg goes off from an slightly overbearing Nez Perce
tribal cop to an unrelated story about someone who "twice gunned
down unarmed, harmless people with extreme prejudice," he lost what
credibility he might have had from telling me what a reasonable
person he was.
The Nez Perce never stole Grigg's property or tried to wipe out his
tribe, so things could be worse for him."
I don't understand how your mentioning LAPD undermines your credibility, or lessens the injuries you received. My acquaintance seems to becoming conditioned to the idea of a police state, dismissing less dangerous encounters.
leek, could you forward the following links to your friend:
"One Giant Rez" --
"Opening the Gates of the Gulag, Pt. III: One Little Victory" --
"The War Criminal on the Twenty-Dollar Bill" --
"Opening the Gates of the Gulag, Pt. II: Manifest Destiny's Dark Side" --
There are a half-dozen other essays I could mention that deal with the dispossession and slaughter of the American Indians, but this should be enough to make the point.
It might be worthwhile to send your friend a copy of my photo....
Very interesting and thought provoking as always. I just thought I'd lift the mood a little bit with the following links to youtube videos of a benighted protector. The first is the edited-for-nightly-news version. The second, a longer clip of the 9-1-1 call.
I didn't bother to follow through with further research. I was laughing too hard.
You might find this latest outrage right up your alley as well: WGN Chicago reports on a nurse arrested by Chicago P.D. for refusing to draw blood on a fellow suspected of DUI. Link her:
All the stupid moronic mor(m)ons are down south not up north. Got your special underwear on a little tight tonight??
Just asking . . .
Sic Semper Tyrannis
After my previous post to JK I thought for the rest of you I should offer a bit in a way of explanation (especially for those not aware of the nuances of ID politics).
You see, JK is what I consider typical of one who puts his -ism before the principles of liberty. An individual who comes across as a closet petty tyrant trying to get on the liberty bandwagon.
Personally, I don't care what what stripe of -ism, or lack of one, a person is as long as they respect the liberty of their fellow man to do the same (one of the best engineer's I've ever had the pleasure to work with is lds, but you'd never really have known it which is as it should be).
Unfortunately, JK's -ism is something he wears on his sleeve and is part of the political force to be reckoned with in this state.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Though I understand, it is too bad Will did not stand his ground. It is such cases as this that we the people continue to be under the tyrannical control freaks, be it police or government "public servants". He had the law on his side, it is there on the books for his protection and security.
We are in the midst of a case here in Alabama of police, judges and others overriding our Alabama Constitution of 1901. There are 36 Declaration of Rights - many are violated and particularly our 36th Declaration of Rights, as if it does not exist ...for all intent and purposes it doesn't because 99.99% of the people aren't aware of it, let alone its meaning and thus it is ignored. However, it reads:
"That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate." [my emphases added]. Just like the First Amendment to the Constitution for the U.S.. i.e. Congress has made no laws regarding it but black robed SCOTUS elitists unconstitutionally have "made law" from the bench, we also have similar situations in Alabama regarding our state constitution.
Much of our Alabama constitution is in violation, even if voted in by the people [they did so under ignorance and/or deception]. ALL gun laws in Alabama are a violation. ALL road blocks in Alabama are in violation. As are many other laws because they violate the Declaration of Rights and they [those rights] are "excepted out of the general powers of government" --government entities have no authority over them ...and certainly the SCOTUS has no authority over them!
There was a Municipal Court hearing held this morning, Sept. 23, 2009 in Alabama for a patriot that is standing for our God given rights and the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and our "second amendment" in it, which is the 26th Declaration of Rights:
Right to bear arms.
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
There are a number of items involved and violations on the part of the state 'employees'. The judge may have been overwhelmed by the supporters that showed up --50 to 60. He would not allow the patriot defendent, said by one supporter, "to complete a sentence. He did not allow him to present his position, saying that [the defendent] had to have a lawyer to speak for him! [The defendent] began to tell him that there is a prior issue that had to be addressed (the issue of jurisdiction!) before this case can be heard. The judge asked him if he was going to plead guilty or not guilty. [The defendent] tried again to tell the judge that there is another issue that is required to be dealt with first, but the judge interrupted and told him he was not allowed to speak! The defendent objected, and the judge said, "Since you will not declare whether you are guilty or not guilty, I will record that you are pleading not guilty, and I will set (The defendent interrupted, and said, "Your honor, you have no right to speak on my behalf because you are not my attorney and there is no contract between us! You have no right to proceed!" The judge kept right on speaking over defendent's voice, and finally set a date for trial". The trial is set for next month. So much for the judge upholding his Oath of office to God.
I for one am thankful for this patriot "defendent"! We hope twice as many people will be there, too, in support!
For those who would like to read the Declaration of Rights, they are posted on the Alabama Constitution Party website for easier reading: http://www.alconstitutionparty.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=194&Itemid=27
I'm lassiez-faire regarding comment threads. I don't permit spam, porn links, or deliberate blasphemy. Other than that, this is a vale tudo forum.
That being said, I would really appreciate it if we could drop the Mormon-related comments unless and until we're dealing with a post relevant to that issue (there have been a few in the past, there will probably be a few in the future).
It doesn't strike me as edifying to watch two valued contributors to this forum -- one a personal friend, the other a friend I've yet to meet in person -- getting bogged down in an increasingly nasty peripheral discussion on this subject.
Once again, apart from the stipulations listed above, this is an open forum. If that discussion continues, I won't interdict it. I just wanted to make my views and sentiments clear.
Leek quoted an acquaintance :
"When Grigg goes off from an slightly overbearing Nez Perce
tribal cop to an unrelated story about someone who "twice gunned
down unarmed, harmless people with extreme prejudice," he lost what
credibility he might have had from telling me what a reasonable
person he was."
I don't think the Nez Perce county sheriff's are 'tribal cops', in fact I'm pretty sure they are not.
And if I am correct, your friend's argument fails as having been argued from an invalid premise - at the very least. In general, I think Will is trying to convey the ever growing state of mind of the tyrant state - comply or die (or in the words of a more eloquent time, objection to the rule of men as opposed to the rule of law).
Sic Semper Tyrannis
My apologies Will - I just don't like being baited.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
I find its easy to go back over past events and analyze what we could or would have said but, alas, we have to handle the cards dealt to us whenever and wherever these "encounters with the dark side" happen to find us. I for one am constantly amazed at the revelations of Idaho cop thugishness. And not to let too many details out... in my class my fellow students nod their heads and agree that they're as thick as theives around here. Far more than I'm used to I have to say.
"[I]t is too bad Will did not stand his ground....He had the law on his side, it is there on the books for his protection and security."
Two points: First, Will had to consider his wife and baby. You may not be aware of it, but his wife Korrin is not well, and is emotionally fragile. Escalating the confrontation, especially if it ended in all of them being arrested, which was entirely possible, would have been extremely adverse for her and the baby.
Second, the so-called "law" offers absolutely NO protection in this country. It is regularly and spectacularly broken by the powers-that-be of The State. If you read this blog regularly, you should know that by now. Just one or two posts ago, we discussed a case where the entire police force (seven cops) of a small town appeared in court for one traffic ticket hearing, at which the unarmed accused was shot in the back by one of the cops - in court, before the judge - and the judge made no objection.
Even the Supreme Court is corrupt. In 2000, they installed as President the man who lost the election, by unconstitutionally interfering in the electoral process in Florida.
Then you have the instances of Waco, Oklahoma City, Operation Northwoods, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, Pearl Harbor, and 9-11. All of these were murders or massacres of Americans instigated or actively abetted at the highest levels of The State.**
You think, compared to those, that the "rights" of William Grigg or any other individual matter one meadow muffin to The State?
The State at every level is a criminal mafia, just like the Sicilian or Russian mafia, dedicated to amassing money by extortion of the people, (instead of working for it like honest folk,) and seizing enough brute power over the people to allow them to keep it.
An individual like Mr. Grigg defies them at his own peril. Martyrdom is a fine choice when one is independent, but Mr. Grigg has his family to consider.
** PS: And that is just in our country. Not to forget the Armenian genocide, the Nazi genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the crimes of Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin, who killed from two to twenty millions of their OWN people. No, The State cares not one mouse fart for law, morality, or basic human decency.
I made some comments there about The State which need substantiation. As it happens, Sibel Edmonds has just testified under oath, and has given her first unfettered interview to The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine:
As a catalog of evil and corruption, it is devastating. But note, this is only the tip of the iceberg, as uncovered by one small little person in a tiny corner of the Federal Government who has been brave enough to speak out.
Don't talk to me about Law and Order. Unless you include the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
In light of what I recently sent to you, note especially the following in the Sibel Edmonds interview:
Q: "You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11..."
A: "Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them. There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management."
- Twinkle-Toes Gulliver.
Off topic I realize, but I'm not going to skirt past this without comment.
A commenter says:
"Even the Supreme Court is corrupt. In 2000, they installed as President the man who lost the election, by unconstitutionally interfering in the electoral process in Florida."
I won't dispute that the SC is corrupt. But the case you cite is the wrong one to cite. The Florida SC, manned by a solid cadre of democrats, intended to break Florida law in 2000 and continue the recounts as long as it took to get the desired result. SCOTUS prevented that, and we should be eternally grateful.
Lemuel Gulliver and others, most especially Will Grigg,
My apologies for the lack of better explanation, also, poor and inadequate wording of my opening sentence "Though I understand, it is too bad Will did not stand his ground".
If I gave the impression to slight Will, please accept my apologies for it was not my intent by any means. I admire his bold outspokenness and appreciate his insight into the atrocious and asinine happenings which confront us individually and across the board on a daily basis.
I mistakenly thought that my "Though I understand" would clarify the words "it is too bad Will did not stand his ground" which followed in the sentence but obviously it did not. Yes, I am aware of his wife, her condition, and his children. I also noted his concern for his friend and mine, Scott Watson, with whom he was riding. Maybe if I had used the words "could not stand his ground" would have been more acceptable.
The point of my whole post was my second sentence: "It is such cases as this that we the people continue to be under the tyrannical control freaks, be it police or government "public servants"." We read and see [on Internet news and emails certainly not from MSM] every day a new diabolical happening against our God given rights and righteous living.
I am well aware of the corruption in our police departments and the judicial branch --from D.C. throughout the country down to local municipal courts. I made mention of the unconstitutional rulings that are [un]laws made from "the bench" of the SCOTUS. Sadly, specifically three of the worst unconstitutional rulings made "law" have come out of Alabama in some way 1) Alabama's Justice Hugo Black in both the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education and in majority of the SCOTUS in 1962 Engel vs. Vitale and the Ten Commandments ruling and removal from the Alabama Supreme Court Building by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson.
As someone stated, the Idaho law was on Will's side. Just as here in Alabama in the case now in process. Nothing says the law will win out since we have corrupt and activist judges but that does not mean we do not take a stand and fight the battle. To do so would deny Christ to work in the situation and win over evil, enabling Him to give His people victory. It is a matter of those who can, take a stand and fight the battle. That is why I said I am thankful for the patriot here in Alabama who is able, willing and knowledgeable to take this stand for all of us. Not EVERY judge and policeman is corrupt. Truth will eventually win out. Truth will prevail in the end.
"[B]ut Mr. Grigg has his family to consider." Yes, exactly! My reason for "Though I understand".
I could go on about our diabolical, tyrannical, Philistine, leviathan Government ....but 'nuff said.
Again, my apologies, please forgive me.
It's not clear from your posting what you are grateful for - do you STILL support George W. Bush as being a good President? Or do you rather support the curtailment of the Florida SC intentions because it would have been interminable? In other words, are you celebrating the process or the outcome?
All things considered, Will, I think you handled yourself admirably.
Admittedly, my blood pressure would immediately elevate as soon as I hear ANYONE spout "because I told you so [to]," but I'd largely keep mum also, if I wasn't the one driving. After all, one has to think of future long-term repercussions of actions beyond the here and now. However, I'd draw the line in the sand if I'm ever commanded to do evil by these Leviathan worker bees. You weren't, so no need to create problems for yourself, your wife, and young child needlessly.
"Because I told you to" is definitely an indicator of the coppers thinking they possess innate authority, no doubt.
But hey, they, like most Amerikaner, are steeped in the "me, myself, and I" and "what's mine is mine and what's yours is potentially mine" mindset and are but a few of the myriad rewards we reap from our craptastic, crud-crusted, circus-saturated culture and are plucked raw right out of it. Ergo, why should we ever expect that the coppers will be something otherworldly? It's ludicrous to think so. They are self-aggrandizing hellions like so many of us, but sanctioned with a badge and a gun of course, unfortunately.
Anyway, this will seem way off-topic to those who are laser-focused upon cops and LE in general (the symptoms rather than the core disease), but nevertheless I think it's worth pondering in light of these dastardly, and unfortunately true to life, cop dramas as well as other Leviathanic machinations.
The Fruits of Apostasy
It is, IMHO, an apropos big picture description of America as it is today with which, needless to say, I concur wholeheartedly. We should all strive to keep in mind that government, in essence, has always been a reflection of the aggregate folk it rules over as I've stated before here many thread moons ago. I'm continually more convinced of that being the cold, hard truth as time slogs along. No one has persuaded me otherwise. Of course, I'm not so "open-minded" (whatever that means) either. I'd rather consider myself "clear-minded" instead.
As a followup: I sent the links Will suggested to my friend.
And by the way, my friend lives in Boise.
He wrote this in a follow-up email Re: Will's article:
The credibility problem comes from describing a general problem through recounting a personal anecdote about a minor abuse of power, and then topping it off with murder and mayhem in a way that draws a parallel between them.
I guess I don't understand the problem. Two incidents are described, with different magnitudes.
My friend seems to think it nullifies both of them because they should never be mixed in the same story.
I would say, on the other hand, that it shows how abuse ranges from the small to the extreme, with no-one ever willing to "draw the line" and put an end to it.
leek, your good buddy is nit picking because, deep down, they're unwilling to acknowledge they'd probably have caved to the cops request. Therefor it's all in the little semantic details that they wriggle and squirm to provide themselves some sort of intellectual cover.
"SCOTUS prevented that, and we should be eternally grateful..."
Are you insane? As opposed to what? With this one we got Patriot Act, endless lies and cover for 9-11, Patriot 2, Perpetual war and death in Iraq and Afghanistan, overseeing the biggest financial debacle ever... The Sibel Edmonds case of rampant treason , corruption ad-nauseum being muzzled by Bush & Co. legal liars, and you're "thankful"? God keep us from that kind of thanks!
2nd followup. My acquaintance writes:
It's easy to see why ammunition manufacturers can't keep up with demand. I'm happy to say I'm considerably more optimistic about the future than Grigg is (or you are, I gather).
"It'll happen again" is not the only possible lesson to take from history.
He also wrote earlier:
I am careful in Lapwai, and all the other little towns between Boise and Moscow. For all the miles I've put on Idaho's highways, I've had very few encounters of any sort with the police. The worst encounter we've had did happen to be in the neighborhood of Lapwai, but it was with a deer, during morning twilight. (We got the better of it overall; I don't think the deer had health insurance.)
The most satisfying encounter was with a Garden City officer, Robert Little, who signed the ticket "B. Little", no less.
I had a reverse light malfunction, he cited me for following too closely. I probably was a little too close to the car in front of me, but they were poking along 30-35 in a 45 zone coming off a light, and I was watching the driver very closely (from the slightly elevated POV in our '87 Nissan van), as we were in the last 2 miles of our day-long drive and anxious to get home. I was also watching the Garden City cop car off my starboard quarter, in my right mirror.
Turns out the Idaho Code's requirement for following distance is a "reasonable" one, and I convinced the judge I was a reasonable person. "Following too closely" is almost always a citation you get after you hit something, so that probably helped.
I thank you for speaking out against the statement: "SCOTUS prevented that, and we should be eternally grateful."
I was waiting for the writer to confirm that he meant what he appeared to be saying before launching into the fray.
As a transplanted Brit, I am constantly grateful to be living among the American people. This is truly a remarkable country - the passionate love of liberty still burns strong in many hearts. The Europeans are very cautious in everything, including interpersonal relations, which has its benefits, but it does tend to stifle the life spirit. I still have hope that the USA has not begun to die, but in its present adversity is becoming a better and a wiser place.
Unfortunately the MSM (media) is a tool of The Corporate State. To what extent this is true would astonish and stun 99 out of 100 people. Nobody realizes how controlled it is. (If you want real examples, reply and I'll tell you.) Second, the Congress is totally controlled by the Corporatocracy which is the real power in America, by (1) money, which is the carrot, and (2) the ease of character assasination by the media, which is the stick.
Third, the Corporatocracy works hand-in-hand with the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. We used to only have the CIA and FBI. Now we have the NSA, DHS, DIA, and a whole slew of 3-letter centers of power, whose immense crimes against the American people would cause you to faint from shock if you knew them. Sibel Edmonds reveals only a tiny glimpse of a tiny part of this criminal cabal.
Question: What is the perfect crime? Answer: One that nobody even knows has been committed. Question: How do you achieve that? Answer: By working within an organization sanctioned by the State whose every activity is secret from the people, the Congress, and even from most employees within the organization.
There are small groups of people, from three or four to a dozen or so, within the CIA, who conduct operations secretly from everyone else in the Agency. There is a pervasive culture throughout the CIA of "Don't ask the wrong questions, or you will be investigated and your life made a misery." People do their own job and strictly mind their own business. I know this for a fact. This is the perfect environment to plan and conduct massive crimes, from murders, extortion, massacres, torture, assassinations, drug running, arms sales and terrorism to subversion of the Constitution of the United States. Why? All for money and power.
The same obtains in intelligence agencies in other countries. It is a brotherhood of criminal mafias which serve the interests of the mega-rich, the mega-powerful, and the mega-corporations around the globe, while enriching themselves at the same time.
The last Bush Administration and elements within the Republican Party were part of this criminal cabal. I do not believe any President up to and including Reagan (whom I deeply respected and whose funeral I made it a point to attend, even though I am a committed Democrat,) was in the know, but George H. W. Bush was an ex-director of the CIA, and I believe the U.S. Presidential involvement in the criminal conspiracy began with him.
(Mr. Grigg, does this fit with what I told you and what Sibel Edmonds reports? The Bin Laden Family? The Carlyle Group? The Saudi Royal Family? Mossad? The Pakistani ISI? Now also, it appears, Turkish Intelligence. I was not aware of their involvement, but it makes sense, since they are so tight with the Mossad.)
Believe me, this is all true. The depth and immensity of the evil among certain of the powerful of this world is horrifying and distressing to any sane human being. I for one can only conclude that these people who rule us must have a screw loose somewhere - they must be just a litle bit insane. How can they do these things for money and power? Have they no emotions? No heart? No conscience? No pity?
What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
And if you think I am being dramatic just for effect, this time I am not. The reality is much, much worse than that.
The brutality of law enforcement in America is only a symptom of a rot, and a corruption, and a vile, evil callousness towards suffering humanity, that begins at the top, and is slowly working its way down through the bureaucracy.
They say that (enter scatagorical terminology) rolls downhill. Thats no lie. Everything we experience at a local level can be traced, even if only in spirit, from the very attitudes and actions of those closest to the levers of power. Just how long it takes to wind its way down to those roots depends on the amount of upward pressure working in the opposite direction.
"Military Police Police Kidnap G20 Protester, Shove Him Into Unmarked Car"
YouTube video summary of the incident:
Will, So do you as a passenger have to show ID or not? Did this get checked out futher?
And a house is built from the foundation up. So, we build constitutional and righteous government from the ground (foundation) up.
Stop supporting the leadership and the establishment of either party, but most assuredly the Republican Party. Start educating and "building" candidates that will make good government.
"Will, So do you as a passenger have to show ID or not? Did this get checked out further?"
Passengers are not required to show ID on demand. Here's the relevant excerpt from the piece"
[...] Sgt. Costner emphasized [that] "there is no physical law that says people have to display ID on demand unless they're driving a vehicle."
"What about a passenger riding in an automobile?" I specified.
"No -- you don't have to display ID as a passenger; only as a driver," repeated Sgt. Costner.
anon at 1015,
keep this in mind the next time a cop ask you for id and you are not driving a vehicle...
"does your state mandate that you BUY it's ID?"
think about that. do you have to have a govt issued ID to walk, go for a jog, ride a bike, go outside? probably not. think of it even further, would a 14 year old (who is not even old enough to drive) have to provide ID? so if a 14 year old passenger does not have to supply ID (because he does not need one)...see where i'm going?
sometimes applying good old common sense can defeat a fool's argument in its tracks.
i've found that the best way to defeat power grabbing govt arguments is to apply not only common sense to it, but some truth, and then assault the lie from several directions. you will then see how foolish the argument/lie is and how to make its presenter look like a fool.
I don't know if you saw this - but it portends a dark future.
~ Ben Horton
Texas police take on blog commenters
Published on 09-27-2009
Everyone in Austin, Texas always seems unusually charming to me.
The people in Starbucks always have time for a chat. And the staff at the wildly gothic Mansion at Judges Hill (which, I am told, used to be a very fine rehab facility) can induce a smile by merely looking at you.
However, it appears that when certain citizens of Austin get behind their computers, they turn into monstrous villains.
This, at least, appears to be the view of Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo. According to the Austin American-Statesman, the chief is considering pursuing commenters on blogs who have either impersonated him or his officers or maligned them beyond the boundaries of legal tolerance.
Options under discussion appear to be not only libel suits, but also criminal charges if the police believe these are warranted.
"A lot of my people feel it is time to take these people on," Acevedo told the Statesman. "They understand the damage to the organization, and quite frankly, when people are willfully misleading and lying, they are pretty much cowards anyway because they are doing so under the cloak of anonymity."
Among the suggestions allegedly implied under this cloak was behavior of an illegal and sexual nature, something the Statesman characterizes as "quid pro quo" arrangements.
The suggestion of lawsuits seems extreme. However, after the "Skanks in NYC" case, in which Google was forced (without trying too hard to fight) to give up the name of a blogger who targeted Vogue model Liskula Cohen, are anonymous bloggers or commenters truly immune from the consequences of their venting?
It so happens that Texas passed a state law on September 1 that specifically targets those who "use another person's name to post messages on a social-networking site without their permission and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten." Such willful behavior is now a third-degree felony.
Is it possible, then, that the Austin police will be the first to test this law out? One can only imagine some commenters' reactions.
Recent 9th Circuit ruling that doesn't help you except to establish precedent restricts Indian stops to look for tribal residents. No reason to suspect any and you have to let them go:
Someone took issue with my statement that SCOTUS intervened in 2000 and we should be grateful.
To clarify (albeit belatedly) I am no fan of George w Bush. But is the eternal recounts in FLA in 200 had been successful, we would have had Al Gore in office. Sure Bush was a bust, but can you honest say you'd have preferred Gore? Rotten choice I'll admit, but at least Bush did a couple of things alright. Gore can't tie his shoes!
I realize no one will probably ever read this, but I only now came back and discovered that I was mistaken for a Bush fan. I can't help that so many people forgot who the losing candidate was in 2000.
Post a Comment