I am not a mushroom so don't keep me in the dark and feed me bullshit.
Judge says ability to walk heel-to-toe not related to ability to drive.
A woman who admitted to using marijuana before getting into her car has been acquitted of impaired driving, with the Saskatoon judge saying he was not convinced her ability to operate a vehicle was affected.
The case, recently published to an online legal database, concerned the arrest of a woman on June 19, 2011, who was pulled over during a routine traffic enforcement program.
According to the judge, the officer directed her to pull over even though she was driving appropriately and in her proper lane of travel.
Unlike drunk driving cases, where .08 per cent is the legal limit for a person's blood-alcohol level, there's no equivalent for marijuana-impaired driving. Instead, officers must rely on a lengthy list of tests to establish impairment.
" I would have appreciated some evidence as to how these observations related to the accused’s ability to drive a motor vehicle." — D. E. Labach, provincial court judge
In the Saskatoon case, when the officer went to the woman's car, he detected what was described as an "overwhelming odour of marijuana." He decided to investigate further and learned from the woman that she had smoked some marijuana earlier in the evening. With that, the officer decided to have the woman perform a number of roadside tests, including walking heel-to-toe and touching the tip of her nose with her finger.
Missed her nose
"She was only successful in touching her nose on one of six attempts," the judge noted in his decision. "On the other five attempts, she touched her face right under her nose."
The officer noted that the woman had reddened eyes, something consistent with marijuana use.
Tests done on suspect in Saskatoon marijuana case:
Horizontal gaze nystagmus test.
Lack of convergence Test.
Walk and turn test.
One leg stand test.
Romberg balance test.
Blood pressure test.
Pupilometer eye Test.
Finger to nose test.
Source: Court documents
A urine sample was also taken and confirmed that the woman had used marijuana.
However, the judge was not convinced there was any evidence that the woman's driving ability was impaired.
In his decision, the judge said he was left with several unanswered questions, including:
What signs of impairment would one expect to see in someone who has been using marijuana?
How long after using marijuana would you expect to see these signs and how long would they last?
Can the results of drug evaluation tests taken over 1½ hours after the time of driving be reliably related back to the time the woman was stopped?
Was the woman's performance in some of the tests an indication of poor balance or poor co-ordination?
On the other hand, the judge found there was plenty of evidence to suggest the woman was not impaired, noting:
The officer did not observe any problems with her driving as she came to the check stop, when she was directed into the check stop or when she was directed to drive out of the line of cars to a nearby parking lot.
She had no problems understanding the officer or answering his questions and did not slur her speech.
She was able to provide him with her licence without any problems and had no difficulty following the officer's instructions or getting out of her vehicle.
When he asked her to take her hand off her vehicle and step away from it, she did so without problem. She did not have to hold on to anyone or anything for balance and after he handcuffed her, she had no problems walking to his police car and getting into the back seat.
She was polite and co-operative with the officer.
The judge added he was not sure how the finger-to-nose test and the walking heel-to-toe test related to one's ability to drive a car.
"I would have appreciated some evidence as to how these observations related to the accused’s ability to drive a motor vehicle," the judge said.
Ultimately, the judge said he was left with reasonable doubt on the charge and the woman was acquitted.
The prosecutor on the case told CBC News that Crown lawyers were still deciding whether to appeal.
The same thing will happen in WA state if 502 passes with it's DUI law in it "a judge familiar with marijuana and it's lack of serious impairment will demand proof and the state can't actually give proof" only propaganda and hyperbole.
Goldman Sachs owns both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney and Romney will serve the wishes of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, the Military-Industrial-Complex, and the Pharmacutical-Medical-Insurance-Complex just the same as Barack Obama has for the past 3+ years.
Whichever candidate becomes President of the United States in 2012, they will be owned by Goldman Sachs and they will do the bidding of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, the Military-Industrial-Complex, and the Pharmacutical-Medical-Insurance-Complex regardless of whatever campaign promises they made to the American voters.
SRI are de sase ori mai multi ofiteri la un milion de locuitori decât serviciul omolog american, FBI. Astfel, România are 571 de sereisti la milionul de locuitori, în timp ce Germania are 89, iar Franta - 98. Conform datelor obtinute exclusiv de Adevarul, România are în acest moment mai multi ofiteri de informatii pe cap de locuitor decât în perioada comunista. În plan intern, acest lucru arata ca exista "o problema interna grava". Acest lucru este confirmat si de doi dintre fostii sefi de servicii secrete, Catalin Harnagea si Ion Mihai Pacepa, care au comentat aceasta situatie pentru Adevarul.Situatia este asemanatoare si la calculul de cadre din serviciile externe. Astfel, SIE are, la un milion de locuitori, de aproape cinci ori mai multe cadre decât serviciul de spionaj britanic, MI5.Totodata, România este "campioana europeana" la servicii secrete, având de aproape patru ori mai multe decât majoritatea tarilor din U.E.
România are astazi mai multi ofiteri de informatii pe cap de locuitor decât în perioada comunista. În acelasi timp, proiectele legii sigurantei nationale ne prezinta tabloul unui spion-stapân pe tot ce misca în România. Iar daca ne aducem aminte si de eforturile de a pastra CNSAS ca un instrument pentru nedeconspirarea Securitatii, tabloul devine unul sumbru. La 16 ani de la evenimentele din decembrie 1989, care au dus la alungarea de la putere a regimului comunist, serviciile secrete continua sa reprezinte un subiect de actualitate, existând numeroase suspiciuni ca, de fapt, practicile fostei Securitati nu au disparut. În acelasi timp, cele doua principale servicii secrete, SRI si SIE, dau dovada în continuare de secretomanie în ceea ce priveste activitatea lor.
SRI si SIE tin la secret numarul personalului SRI a refuzat sa precizeze la cererea ziarului Adevarul numarul cadrelor sale. Ca de altfel si SIE, care precizeaza pe site-ul sau de internet ca "din motive de securitate, ca si celelalte servicii de informatii externe, nu face referiri la numarul angajatilor sai". În realitate însa, în Occident, numarul de angajati al serviciilor secrete, fie ele interne sau externe, nu este secret. Mai mult, chiar unele dintre ele, printre care si CIA, pun la dispozitie celor interesati grafice comparative cu numarul de salariati din ultimele decenii. MI5 si BND (serviciile externe britanice si germane) dau si mai multe informatii. În ciuda secretomaniei oficiale, Adevarul a reusit sa afle numarul de cadre al celor doua principale servicii secrete.
21 milioane de români sunt supravegheati mai mult decât 90 milioane de nemti Fostul director al SIE Catalin Harnagea confirma cifra de 12.000 de ofiteri pentru SRI. Generalul Ion Mihai Pacepa, fost director adjunct al Departamentului de Informatii Externe, care a cerut în 1978 azil politic în Statele Unite ale Americii, spune ca aceasta cifra este cea reala. Pacepa spune ca SRI are, practic, un numar dublu de ofiteri în comparatie cu Franta, unde echivalentul sau, DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire), are numai 6.000 de cadre la o populatie aproape tripla decât cea a României. Mai precis, România are 21 milioane de cetateni, iar Franta - aproape 61 de milioane, conform recensamântului din iulie 2005. Catalin Harnagea, fostul sef al SIE, da ca exemplu serviciul intern german, Bundesant für Verfassungschutz (BfV), care are 8.000 de ofiteri la o populatie de peste 90 milioane de oameni, adica una de peste patru ori mai mare decât cea a tarii noastre, dar ofiterii de informatii din Germania Federala sunt cu 25 la suta mai putini decât cei din România. Concluzia lui Pacepa este ca, astazi, "dimensiunile serviciilor secrete ale României sunt iesite din comun".
De exemplu, FBI, echivalentul american al SRI, are 11.400 de agenti speciali si 16.400 de angajati administrativi. Populatia Statelor Unite este de peste 295 de milioane.
Suspiciuni de Politie Politica Harnagea spune ca, în cazul unei scheme foarte mari a unui serviciu secret intern, se poate concluziona ca "tara are o problema interna grava". El afirma ca daca întrebi un specialist în structuri de informatii despre supradimensionarea serviciilor interne ale unui stat, atunci raspunsul primit ar putea fi simplu: neconform cu regulile acceptate de tarile din Uniunea Europeana si NATO. De altfel, surse din serviciile secrete ne-au precizat ca, în ultimii ani, americanii au semnalat în mai multe rânduri situatia "ciudata" de la SRI. De altfel, si UE a transmis semnale identice. "Diferenta dintre România de azi si cea comunista este ca de la zi la noapte. Dar statul politist creat de Ceausescu nu a fost înca total demolat, din care cauza România detine un record european: are sapte servicii de informatii si contrainformatii majore. Germania, Franta, Italia, Spania, Belgia, Olanda, Danemarca, Suedia, Norvegia, Ungaria, Republica Ceha, Polonia si Bulgaria au doua. Finlanda, Estonia, Slovenia, Serbia, Elvetia si Grecia au doar unul", ne spune Ion Mihai Pacepa. Fostul sef adjunct al Directiei de Informatii Externe (DIE) mai afirma: "Cele sapte servicii secrete române, care continua sa puna o stampila comunista pe fata tarii, nu vor disparea de la sine. Ele vor putea fi eliminate doar când parlamentul, guvernul si clasa politica vor fi plivite de securisti, care vor sa mentina România stat politist pentru a nu-si pierde pozitiile".
Învatamântul de informatii de tip bolsevic SRI are o structura foarte stufoasa, spun specialistii în domeniu. În acelasi timp, în schema SRI intra si Institutul National de Informatii (INI). La întrebarile ziarului Adevarul, SRI a refuzat sa dea detalii despre structura acestei institutii de învatamânt superior care functioneaza cu binecuvântarea Ministerului Învatamântului sub egida serviciului secret intern. Surse din SRI care au dorit sa-si pastreze anonimatul au invocat ca exemplu celebrul Quantico al FBI. Numai ca exemplul amintit nu este relevant, deoarece Quantico este administrat de Departamentul american al Justitiei în subordinea caruia functioneaza si FBI. O alta problema a SRI sunt asa-numitele gospodarii si întreprinderi productive din subordinea sa, ca de exemplu Radmil. Acest lucru continua o alta traditie de trista amintire a Securitatii: folosirea serviciilor secrete pentru a face comert nesupus controlului organelor de stat. Perpetuarea acestei practici ceausiste poate duce la noi abuzuri, ca de exemplu vânzarea ilegala de produse petroliere catre regimul lui Milosevici, acum câtiva ani. Institutul National de Informatii a fost în ultimul deceniu subiectul mai multor scandaluri. Pe scurt, s-au formulat acuzatii ca studentii erau îndoctrinati contra Statelor Unite si Occidentului, adica tocmai aliatii de astazi ai României.
De doua ori mai multi ofiteri decât în epoca de glorie a Securitatii Concluzia este ca România are mai multi ofiteri pe cap de locuitor decât în timpul dictaturii comuniste. În decembrie 1989, Securitatea avea circa 14.000 ofiteri. Doar doua (SRI si SIE) din cele sapte servicii secrete ale României de azi au peste 15.000 ofiteri. Daca am adauga la efectivele SRI si SIE miile de ofiteri din serviciul de informatii al Ministerului de Interne (care sub comunism apartinea Securitatii), am avea de-a face cu un total aproape dublu comparat cu cel al României comuniste.
SIE are cu 10 la suta mai multi angajati decât DIE Serviciul de Informatii Externe (SIE) are în jur de 3.000 de angajati. În mod normal, dintre acestia, o treime ar trebuie sa se afle în centrala de la Bucuresti. Generalul Pacepa afirma ca, în 1978, când a parasit România, DIE - precursorul SIE - avea 2.700 de angajati. De observat în acest caz ca, la acea vreme, DIE facea spionaj global, ceea ce nu mai este cazul cu SIE, deoarece România de azi este membra NATO si va adera în cenzuratând la Uniunea Europeana. Fostul sef al SIE Catalin Harnagea confirma numarul de angajati avansat de Adevarul, dar spune ca nu poate preciza cifra exacta. El spune ca a avut o problema, pe când era la SIE, cu "echilibrarea" optima a angajatilor operativi cu cei de la administrativ. În acest moment, SIE are cu 50 la suta mai multi angajati decât mult mai celebrul sau omolog britanic, MI5. În prezent, serviciul extern britanic are 1.900 de angajati, dintre care 1.860 cu contract full time. De altfel, în ciuda secretomaniei SIE, MI5 precizeaza ca numarul de angajati la sfârsitul razboiului rece era de 2.150. Despre actuala structura a personalului, britanicii nu se sfiesc cu detaliile. 47 la suta sunt femei, iar 54 la suta sunt persoane sub 40 de ani. Nici serviciul extern german nu adopta secretomania SIE. Nemtii precizeaza pe site-ul lor de internet ca au în prezent 6.300 de angajati, însa personalul va fi redus în cenzuratând la 4.500.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, but he remains holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If he leaves the compound, he will be arrested and extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assault. Assange denies the allegations and claims they are part of an effort to get him to the United States to face more serious charges related to his work for WikiLeaks. High-profile defenders like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have recently published editorials in support of Assange. Now, professor and activist Noam Chomsky weighs in.
Julian Assange faces serious accusations from two women in Sweden, yet you've said that any decent country should grant him asylum. Why?
The accusations should be taken quite seriously, just as all such accusations should. Independent of that, no decent country would permit a person to be sent to a country where the chances of his receiving a fair trial are very limited. The apparent conflict can be easily resolved. Sweden claims only that they want to interrogate Assange. They have been invited to do that in England, or in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. They refuse. They could also issue a statement that they will not extradite Assange to the United States. They refuse.
Suppose that Assange had leaked Russian, rather than American, documents, and the circumstances were otherwise the same. Then Sweden would not hesitate for a moment to question Assange in the United Kingdom and to guarantee that he would not be extradited to Russia. Those who think that this analogy is unfair have something to learn about contemporary history. They can, for example, look at the brutal and criminal treatment of Bradley Manning, to take one of many examples.
It is worth adding that Sweden is quite willing to follow Washington's orders in even worse circumstances than this - for example, when the United States wanted Sweden to send someone to Mubarak's Egypt to be tortured.
According to documents published by WikiLeaks, the Ecuadorian government doesn't support freedom of the press domestically. Is it hypocritical for Assange to accept asylum from such a country?
Of course not, no more than it is hypocritical for him to stay in London, which has a shameful record of violation of freedom of press - of course, targeting weak and defenseless journals, so that it passes without comment. As for the charges against Ecuador, they should be evaluated seriously, just like those against England, France, and others. But it is irrelevant here.
What's at stake here?
At stake is the question of whether the citizens of a country have a right to know what their elected officials are doing. Those who have a lingering affection for an odd notion called "democracy" believe that this is important. To be sure, a state has the right to keep some matters secret. I haven't read all the WikiLeaks exposures, but I have read quite a few, and I have not seen an example of anything that could legitimately be kept secret, nor, to my knowledge, have the horde of angry critics presented an example. I should say that this is not unusual. Anyone who has spent time studying declassified documents is well aware that overwhelmingly, they are kept secret to protect elected officials from the scrutiny of citizens, not for defense or some other legitimate purpose.
Someone who courageously carries out actions in defense of democratic rights deserves applause, not hysterical denunciation and punishment. We understand that very well with regard to official enemies. Since you bring up the matter of "hypocrisy," it is the extreme of hypocrisy to refuse to apply the same standards to ourselves.
Noam Chomsky is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has also written and lectured widely on intellectual history, contemporary issues, international affairs, and US foreign policy.
NON SONO "DIEGO DELLA VALLE" CHE SI PUO PERMETTERE DI ACQUISTARE UNA PAGINA DI UN GIORNALE E SCRIVERE QUEL CHE VUOLE, TUTTAVIA VI CHIEDO DI PUBBLICARE QUESTA LETTERA AFFINCHE' POSSA ARRIVARE DOVE IL BUON SENSO NON ARRIVA.
Immedesimarsi in una persona con Autismo... è praticamente impossibile, ma anche la più amara delle giornate può avere un altro sapore. Questo vorrei dire a quelle madri e padri che hanno un figlio disabile.
Non riesco più a ricordare cosa significa essere normali, nel linguaggio di quel mondo di cui facevo parte e che oggi non mi vuole, da quando combatto contro lo spettro della patologia dell'autismo e dell'autismo istituzionale.
Ho cercato in una vita normale di focalizzare lo scopo della mia vita, ma lungo il percorso è successo qualcosa d'inaspettato.
Come posso aiutarti a vedere, ora, figlio mio!? Posso solo sostenerti con le mie spalle per stare in piedi.
Non riesco a ricordare una vacanza, intesa come tale, una festa vissuta come dovrebbe essere vissuta.
Non siamo liberi di frequentare posti e luoghi comuni, a causa anche di una cattiva informazione, per la mancanza di strutture adeguate ad ospitare ed accogliere dei bambini ed i loro genitori.
Capita di avere di tanto in tanto un fine settimana positivo e quando arriva lo ricordi come un evento storico.
Si continua a parlare di tagli. La crisi lavorativa e sanitaria colpisce anzitutto e soprattutto anziani e disabili, ma mai chi non ha problemi di natura economica... ed indirettamente o direttamente... anche i genitori degli stessi bambini e/o ragazzi disabili, una situazione che grava sulle famiglie ed aggrava le stesse famiglie, costringendole a sobbarcarsi di spese ABNORMI per una mancanza di servizi dovuti, ma non voluti... (qualcuno sa dirci perchè?).
Dal punto di vista sociale, attendiamo da anni una risposta efficiente e soluzioni altrettanto efficaci.
Ci dicono "vedrai tutto si risolverà" ed intanto il tempo passa e per noi che di tempo non ne abbiamo, con lui (il tempo), ogni giorno cresce lo sconforto, perchè non sai che fare... Poichè ogni giorno devi combattere con nuovi problemi legati alla malattia di tuo figlio e ti senti disarmato/a, inerme... e qualche volta ASETTICO.
Questo è un mondo che non ci vuole, che ci abbandona a noi stessi , ed in alcuni casi sono gli stessi amici a non comprendere ed io sono stanco dei troppi rinvii e dico a tutte le istituzioni (locali e non)... BASTA... MA BASTA.
Bisogna intervenire SUBITO... come?
Partendo dalla soluzione e non dal problema...ascoltare i genitori... può essere un buon inizio ed applicare le leggi lo è altrettanto...poi occorre cuore e buona volontà.
Non posso sicuramente affermare che questo è quello che avrei voluto per i miei figli, pensando ad una famiglia, in questo mondo di squali.
Una vita difficile , dove solo se ti sai difendere con le unghie e con i denti, riesci a sopravvivere, dove il dio denaro la fa da padrone, dove si è perso il rispetto per il proprio simile.
Non è facile accettare una malattia, una patologia del proprio figlio, ed allora ti chiedi:
- Perchè proprio a me?
- Cosa ho fatto di male?
- Cosa posso fare?
- Chi mi aiuterà?
E poi ti rendi conto che è e sarà solo tuo figlio che vivrà una vita difficile, in un mondo che va sempre piu' di corsa, lasciando indietro chi non è in grado di stare al suo passo... ed in qualche caso anche volutamente abbandonato... poichè considerato un peso dalla comunità.
Non ho certo la bacchetta magica per risolvere i problemi, SONO UN GENITORE COME VOI, non ho la ricetta per uscire dal tunnel dell'autismo, MA HO CAPITO COSA SERVE AI MIEI FIGLI, QUALI SONO LE STRATEGIE DA ADOTTARE E PERCHE'.
Ho capito che non è piangendomi addosso, che darò un futuro ai miei figli. Se puoi capire anche tu, che non hai nulla da perdere, se puoi credere di poter dare un futuro a tuo figlio e a tutti figli dell'autismo, ALLORA SEI GIA' TRE PASSI AVANTI.
Ho vissuto parte della mia vita alla ricerca di risoluzioni ai miei problemi, rivolgendomi alle istituzioni, nella speranza che qualcuno con un cuore grande mi prendesse per mano, facendomi uscire dal baratro. Ho vissuto così 2 anni di travaglio cercando risposte a domande dove risposte non c'erano.
Ho perduto del tempo prezioso che mai nessuno mi restituirà e ancor meno ai miei figli, per accorgermi che solo un genitore come me può capire lo stato d'animo nel vedere il proprio figlio autistico... un misto tra angoscia e impotenza, per scoprire di non poter parlare con nessuno, perdendo ogni contatto con la realtà, con la vita sociale ed allora si diventa disabili nostro malgrado e nello specifico AUTISTICI.
Ho conosciuto Mara, una mamma ed una donna straordinaria. Ho visto in lei gli occhi di una madre gonfi di dolore per l'autismo di suo figlio, senza nessuno a cui raccontarlo, con la consapevolezza di essere SOLA. In lei ho rivisto i stessi miei occhi.
Ho rivisto quegli occhi ritornare alla speranza, a sorridere verso un suo simile, anche se solo uno sconosciuto e comprendere che insieme è possibile vincere.
Insieme possiamo fare tanto, insieme possiamo aiutare i nostri figli, scendere dal titanic per risalire sull'arca... non permettere a nessuno di annullarti, noi siamo chi vogliamo essere.
Ma il vero autistico, il vero ostacolo è la politica ed i suoi rappresentanti che si mettono le dita nelle orecchie per non sentire, le mani sugli occhi per non vedere, sulla bocca per non parlare ed in mezzo alle gambe... per farsi cavoli suoi.
Vedendo, anni fa, "Rain Man" , oggi in una tournè teatrale, pensavo, durante e dopo a cosa avessi fatto se fosse capitato anche a me. Oggi ho 3 figli di cui 2 autistici e mi batto per loro, vivo per loro, morirei per loro.
Il senso di responsabilità dei genitori con figli autistici è elevatissimo Non possiamo spianare loro la strada, ma costruire attraverso un duro lavoro una carta stradale con la quale possono orientarsi.
Voglio salutarvi dicendovi che questa lettera non è rivolta solo agli orfani di ideali ma si rivolge anche a coloro che vogliono cambiare il modo di guardare all'esistenza.
AUTISMO è PER TUTTA LA VITA... MA MAI... CONTRO LA VITA.
Autore: Alessandro Capobianchi - ITALIA 19 LUGLIO 2012
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons and officers of the Bureau of Prisons designated by him are authorized to receive custody of offenders and to transfer offenders to and from the United States of America under a treaty as referred to in Public Law 95-144; to make arrangements with the States and to receive offenders from the States for transfer to a foreign country; to act as an agent of the United States to receive the delivery from a foreign government of any person being transferred to the United States under such a treaty; to render to foreign countries and to receive from them certifications and reports required under a treaty; and to receive custody and carry out the sentence and imprisonment of such a transferred offender as required by that statute and any such treaty.
The delegation order above clearly distinguishes between the United State of America and the United States. The Director and designated officers, wardens, are “...authorized to receive custody of offenders ... from the United States of America ...,” and “to act as an agent of the United States to receive the delivery from a foreign government of any person transferred to the United States under such a treaty ...” Once the Director and his designated officers receive custody of offenders from a foreign government, they become agents of that government by carrying out the sentence imposed by the foreign government.
This bit of “hide the truth with legalese mumbo-jumbo” becomes clearer via the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (Pub.L. 91-538, Dec. 9, 1970, 94 Stat. 1397 et seq.). In section 2 of the Act, the United States and the District of Columbia are made parties to the agreement:
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers is hereby enacted into law and entered into by the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of the District of Columbia with all jurisdictions legally joining in substantially the following form:
In Article II (a) of the Act, the “United States of America” is defined as a “State”:
“State” shall mean a State of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Delegations of authority at 28 CFR, Parts 0.55, 0.64-1, 0.96 and 0.96b, and the above cites from the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act clearly demonstrate the two critical elements: The United States of America is an entity defined by act of Congress as a State, which means it is geographical and territorial, and it is a government foreign to the United States.
Finally, the “United States of America, ss, President of the United States”, is principal of interest in courts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (48 USC Ă‚Â§Ă‚Â§ 874 & 1406f), and probably other United States courts in the larger insular possessions, those being located in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. There is no statutory authority authorizing the “United States of America” as principal of interest in courts of the United States situated in the Union of several States party to the Constitution. In fact, it is reasonably easy to demonstrate that all civil and/or criminal actions prosecuted on behalf of the United States of America in United States District Courts presume admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the territorial United States District Court of the Virgin Islands.
Where this discourse serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that precious little current federal law applies in and to the Union of several States, and people of the several States, whether citizens or aliens lawfully admitted to the several States, it isn’t necessary to address motive beyond what is necessary to assist with understanding, and accepting, why elected and appointed public servants left constitutionally delegated authority behind to exit through the Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 loophole, then establish a nonconstitutional government entity—a political compact or alliance—foreign to the United States.
Motive is ages old—the lust, and greed, for wealth and power. For the first time in history, the alliance behind the scheme is postured for true global conquest. But the conquest is without authority of law. Perpetrators must step beyond constitutional, statutory, and regulatory authority in order to impose what is glibly described as private international law—a system which is slightly more subtle in means, if not effect, than methods employed by Vandals to sack the Roman Empire.
The legalese mumbo-jumbo is designed to make understanding as difficult as possible, but the mandate for publication of delegations of authority, regulations, etc., is articulated in Note 16, 44 U.S.C.A. Ă‚Â§ 1505, by the following decision:
The Administrative Procedure Act, Ă‚Â§ 551 et seq., of Title 5, and this chapter [44 USC Ă‚Â§Ă‚Â§ 1501 et seq.] require publication, irrespective of actual notice, as a prerequisite to issuance of a regulation making certain acts criminal. Hotch v. U.S., 1954, 212 F.2d. 280, 14 Alaska 594
There are no regulations (see Code of Federal Regulations titles) for Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore, by terms of the Federal Register Act, there can be only three applications of penalty statutes classified in Title 18 of the United States Code: They can apply to, (1) agencies and officers, employees and agents of the United States, (2) territories and insular possessions of the United States, and (3) United States admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. All of the applications, or jurisdictions, are special in nature. Congress’ authority to regulate government, and to define and punish piracy and other offenses on the high seas, are Article I Ă‚Â§ 8 delegated powers, but the special territorial jurisdiction falls under Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 municipal authority.
There is yet another erroneous fly in the ointment to be examined: Virtually all civil litigation and criminal prosecution by government officials is in the name of the “United States of America”, not the “United States.”
This detail cannot be overlooked. TheConstitution of the United States, as the Articles of Confederation before, vests authority in the governmental entity designated as the United States. Article I Ă‚Â§ 1 of the Constitution vests legislative authority in the Congress of the United States; Article II establishes the President of the United States; and Article III vests judicial authority of the United States in the supreme Court of the United States and whatever inferior courts Congress might establish. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the United States from exercising power not delegated by the Constitution.
The “United States of America” is an historically significant name. Article I of the Articles of Confederation established the several party States as the United States of America, and the people of the United States of America established theConstitution of the United States(Preamble). But each of the several States is sovereign within its borders except for powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The people of this nation have vested no authority in a governmental entity known as the “United States of America”, and state and national constitutions do not delegate authority for officers of the several States and the United States to unilaterally establish a new national power.
Resolving the mystery of who or what the “United States of America” is somewhat like walking through a house of mirrors, but two conclusions can be drawn from available evidence: (1) the United States of America is a governmental entity foreign to the United States, and (2) the United States of America is a geographical entity.
The first capacity of the Assistant Attorney General is found at 28 CFR, Part 0.55. At Part 0.55(b), the delegation order specifies that the Assistant Attorney General will conduct, supervise, or handle, “Cases involving criminal frauds against the United States...,” and at Part 0.55(s), the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice is required to conduct, supervise, or handle, “Civil proceedings in which the United States is plaintiff...” In other words, the “United States” is principal of interest in the basic delegation of authority for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
However, at 28 CFR, Part 0.64-1, the delegation to the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division authorizes him to serve as agent for a distinctly separate entity, the “United States of America.” The delegation also authorizes him to redelegate this authority to Deputy Assistant Attorney’s General in the Criminal Division, or to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division. The entire delegation order, as it appears in the Code of Federal Regulations, is as follows:
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division shall have the authority and perform the functions of the “Central Authority” or “Competent Authority” (or like designation) under treaties and executive agreements between the United States of America and other countries on mutual assistance in criminal matters which designate the Attorney General or the Department of Justice as such authority. The Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, is authorized to redelegate this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Criminal Division, and to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division.
In order to establish that the “United States of America” is a government or some other form of entity foreign to the “United States”, it is not necessary to prove the precise who, what or where, it is only necessary to prove that the United States of America is separate and distinct from the United States. The above delegations of authority to the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice do that—Part 0.55 establishes his capacity in relation to offenses against the United States; Part 0.64-1 establishes his capacity as agent for the United States of America. They are clear and distinct capacities. Therefore, the United States of America is a government or political compact established under treaties and executive agreements which is foreign to the United States; whether geographically or in the sense that a donor heart is alien and foreign to a heart transplant recipient.
Delegations to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons are even clearer. The Director and his officers (wardens) are authorized to (1) imprison people convicted of offenses against the United States, (2) accept and imprison prisoners transferred from the United States of America, and (3) accept and imprison prisoners transferred from the District of Columbia. District of Columbia prisoners will not be considered in this context.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons relating to offenses against the United States is at 28 CFR, Part 0.96, reproduced in relative part:
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to exercise or perform any of the authority, functions, or duties conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment, control or treatment of persons (including insane prisoners and juvenile delinquents) charged with criminal offenses against the United States...
The Director’s capacity as agent of the United States of America is at 28 CFR, Part 0.96b:
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “State” means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia.
There are several different principles of law that govern interpretation of the two definitions of “State” set out above, but probably the more concise is “Inclusio unius est exclusion alterius”, defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, as follows:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others.Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d, 321, 325. This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
Kevin McC v. Mary A, 123 Misc.2d 148 N.Y.S.2d, 116, 118.
The definition of “State” at 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 111(d) clearly applies only within the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction—Congress’ “special” or limited jurisdiction. Therefore, the Buck Act does not apply to the Union of several States party to the Constitution as they are not territories or possessions of the United States. All examples in the definition are of federal territories. When the definition employs the term “includes”, it can be expanded only to the class, not anything outside the class demonstrated by example. Since 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 111(d) does not mention the several States, and does not name any of the several States as a class example, “[they were] intended to be omitted or excluded.”
On the other hand, 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 112(d) specifically includes the several States along with the District of Columbia, incorporated territories and insular possessions of the United States. This particular statute is the underlying authority for uniform laws relating to extradition, detainers, etc. Congress has legitimate constitutional authority to make these kinds of uniform rules, and this is one of the few acts classified in the United States Code that appears to issue under Congress’ general legislative power.
Now consider corresponding applications found in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Per authority of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules, delegated at 28 USC Ă‚Â§ 2072, any statute in conflict with the rules is automatically repealed, so the following applications govern Title 18 of the United States Code, which is entitled, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”:
“State” includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.
“Act of Congress” includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.
Given the Latin principle above, it is clear that these applications do not extend to the Union of several States party to the Constitution. They address only real estate under Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 municipal authority. Therefore, little or nothing in title 18 of the United States Code applies to the Union of several States and the population at large. Since all other penalty statutes in the United States Code fall back on Title 18 for procedure, the conclusion can be made that few if any criminal statutes classified in the United States Code are applicable to or within the several States except in federal enclaves such as military installations and national parks.
At 18 USC Ă‚Â§ 5, the “United States” is defined as follows:
Ă‚Â§5. United States defined
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
There we find the word “territorial” - the territorial or geographical United States. The territorial United States is subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 plenary power—the combined power of state and national, and in some instances, local government. The United States definition above, which is controlling for Title 18 of the United States Code, has application limited to territories and insular possessions of the United States.
Another clear clue is in the catchline for the Title 18 jurisdiction section, Ă‚Â§ 7: “Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined.” The section defines eight jurisdictions, none of which apply to the several States beyond borders of federal enclaves. No jurisdiction defined in Title 18 reaches the Union of several States party to the Constitution.
It is also important to understand that Congress can enact laws applicable exclusively within Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 jurisdiction that fall within Article I delegated power, but not exercise the Article I power for general application. This is basically what happened following across-the-board repeal of excise taxes via the revenue act of November 23, 1921. Excise tax with general application were legitimate under Article I Ă‚Â§ 8 delegated authority, but when they were reenacted, they were promulgated under Congress’ special authority within the geographical United States.
To see this, consider definitions of interstate and foreign commerce at 18 USC Ă‚Â§ 10:
Ă‚Â§ 10. Interstate commerce and foreign commerce defined
The term ’interstate commerce", as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia.
The term “foreign commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.
The term “State” must have the definition or application set out in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in order to maintain consistency and agreement: “’State’ includes the possession.” Examples in the 18 USC Ă‚Â§ 10 definition of interstate principle set out above governs: That which was omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
The Federal Register Act provides a convenient test for the allegation that Title 18 of the United States Code is applicable only in the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 municipal authority. Of particular import, 44 USC Ă‚Â§ 1505(a)(1) stipulates that all “Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof,” must be published in the Federal Register. The subsection concludes, “For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.”
There was, however, an early glitch. Congress chartered a national bank. Money powers were waiting at the gate from the beginning. That experience soured, so the charter for the first national bank was terminated shortly after the turn of the century. Then a second was chartered. Andrew Jackson put an end to the second in 1836 when he vetoed the bill that would have renewed the charter. Jackson’s reasoning was simple: The Constitution does not delegate authority for Congress to establish a national bank. Jackson’s rationale has never been seriously challenged, and the Constitution has never been amended to authorize Congress to establish a national bank. Nor, for that matter, does the Constitution delegate authority for the United States to establish corporations, particularly private corporations.
Development in these areas came primarily during and after the Civil War. National banks were established in territories of the United States, but no central or national bank was established. Many of the nation’s railroads were also chartered and incorporated in territories, so were and are United States corporations. The underlying rationale is simple: Where territory of the United States is concerned, Congress has permissive rather than restrictive power—Congress can do anything not explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
One of the things entrenched powers wanted was authority to print paper money, and by way of paper, to create credit. The Supreme Court held out on this matter as late as 1880, but in 1884, the court almost completely reversed with the Julliard decision—the Constitution does not expressly prohibit Congress from printing paper money.
It does, however, prohibit the several States from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, and the court generally upheld this prohibition through the balance of the nineteenth century when states such as Washington demanded payment of taxes in gold and silver coin.
Generally speaking, United States paper money was accepted and honored as it was backed 100% by gold. It was more convenient with respect to weight and bulk, and it had other advantages, particularly as silver coin became less plentiful.
In 1913, Congress chartered the Federal Reserve System as a national bank of sorts. Federal Reserve banks provided several advantages, not the least of which was giving United States government access to ready credit created out of thin air. With authority to create credit, Federal Reserve banks could effectively manufacture money—or what appeared as money. From 1914 to 1933, United States paper money issued in conjunction with Federal Reserve banks went from 100% backed by gold, to 40% backed by gold and the other 60% backed by obligations of the United States. Dilution of the currency dramatically increased money in circulation, which resulted in inflation, and partially fueled the speculative period producing the 1929 equities collapse.
The three basic mechanisms the Federal Reserve uses to control credit and money supply, with all “money” generated through credit issue, are as follows: The percentage of reserve required on deposit by member banks; open window discount rates (interest charged to member banks, mostly Federal Reserve Banks); and the basic discount or interest rate. Through these mechanisms, the Federal Reserve maintains “hard money” or “soft money” policy, either shrinking or expanding credit and money supply and thereby regulating the overall economy. Through these mechanisms the Federal Reserve can single-handedly collapse the nation’s credit and monetary systems, or if there is perceived benefit, such as an election year might be, nurse a sick economy along. This is hardly the regulation of value the Constitution delegates to Congress.
If the Constitution hasn’t been amended, United States paper money (Federal Reserve [bank] Notes), and the Federal Reserve System, must be creatures of Congress’ Article IV authority in the geographical United States.
The Constitution says what is says—it hasn’t been amended either to authorize the several States to make anything other than gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, or authorizing Congress to take absolute control of the nation’s economic activity. Consequently, there can be but one conclusion: The Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve [bank] Note are legitimate, or have legitimate authority for use, only in the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction Ă˘â‚¬â€śthey are creatures within the scope of Congress’ special rather than general authority.
There is far more to the credit and monetary scams than will be treated here since the purpose at hand is to demonstrate proper application of federal law rather than to address any given subject. It should be obvious, however, that once fraudulent credit and monetary systems predicated on Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative authority were in place, it was necessary to move all or nearly all of United States government under the same authority. Where the federal tax system is concerned, that was done via the revenue act of November 23, 1921—virtually all taxes promulgated under Congress’ Article I and Sixteenth Amendment authority were repealed. When they were reenacted, they came back in under Congress’ Article IV Ă‚Â§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction. No taxing statute in the current Internal Revenue Code (Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large), as amended in 1986 and since, evidenced in title 26 of the United States Code) reaches the several States and the population at large. The taxes apply in three general categories: Income tax, Social Security tax, and the like apply only to agencies and employees of the United States; most other taxes, including inheritance, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, etc., are applicable only in the geographical United States; and some taxes cross over to customs duties.
One of the ways to determine geographical application of any given statute or act is by way of definitions contained in the act. For example, the Buck Act, which allegedly extended authority of “States” to tax on federal territory within a “State”, is a classical red herring. The Buck Act is reproduced in sections 105-111 of Title 4 of the United States Code. The term “State” is defined at 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 111(d), as follows:
(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
Compare the above definition to the one in the act that authorized the several States, and eventually federal territories and the like, to enter cooperative agreements relating to crime. The original act was promulgated in June 1934, then the basis for the current form was reenacted in May 1949. It has been amended several times since, but no major revision since Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. The definition is at 4 USC Ă‚Â§ 112(b):
The current geographical United States includes the District of Columbia and federal enclaves where jurisdiction over forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings has been ceded by the several States respectively; lands retained in States admitted to the Union since approximately 1870; and insular possessions, along with territorial waters (12-mile limit, established under international law).
The geographical division determines Congress’ power: Congress may exercise constitutionally delegated power, primarily under Art. I Ă‚Â§ 8 of the Constitution, throughout the “American empire.” This is Congress’ “general power.”
Congress exercises the combined power of state, national, and even local government in territory belonging to the United States—in the “geographical” United States. This is Congress’ special or limited jurisdiction.
Within the Union of several States, Congress may exercise only constitutionally delegated authority; within the “geographical” United States, Congress may exercise all power not explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Congress’ general powers delegated by the Constitution are restricted to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution; Congress’ special plenary power is permissive, limited only by implicit and explicit constitutional prohibitions, but may be exercised only in territory belonging to the United States.
Congress’ authority in and over the geographical United States is somewhat on the order of a European government where what we understand as national government in the American system is also a state government. Where existing insular possessions are concerned, there is also the distinction that the Constitution applies to them only as Congress chooses to extend it. Governing principles are more under international than constitutional law.
This notion was first judicially framed by Chief Justice Marshall in an 1828 decision involving an incident in Florida while Florida was yet a territory of the United States.
The Constitution extends authority for Congress to declare war and make treaties. It also delegates authority for Congress to establish new states.
Although the Constitution is silent with respect to acquisition of new territory beyond borders of existing States, and implicitly bringing territories ceded by original States into the Union, these powers were construed to extend territorial acquisition authority, and vest Congress with authority to govern and determine disposition of acquired territory. Following the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson drafted proposed amendments that would authorize incorporating Louisiana and other future states included in the Purchase into the constitutional scheme, but Congress elected to proceed without an amendment. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Supreme Court in 1828, was put in a position of having to rationalize a quarter century of territorial development. In the Article IV framework, he stepped from strict constitutional construction into the forum of international law. Thus, federal government found a capacity beyond strict constitutional restrictions. There was a whole separate world to be explored, and subdued, beyond constitutional bounds.
To the point of the Spanish-American War, there was an amount of solace for incorporated territories of the United States, as well as the Union of several States: Once the Constitution has been extended to a territory, it cannot be retracted. The Ordinance of 1787 provided an amount of protection as it specifies that people of the territories were assured of common law and due process in the course of the common law, along with most other rights secured in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But unincorporated territories did not enjoy these assurances.
Insular possessions have gained an amount of ground by way of compacts and agreements, but remain outside the constitutional scheme. Virtually all of them are subjected to “due process in the course of the civil law” (admiralty/maritime), and remain within Coast Guard jurisdiction.
With the history of United States territorial acquisition and development in place, Congress’ distinct roles, and distinction between the Union of several States and the geographical United States, are reasonably clear. With this in mind, the reason precious little federal law applies to the Union of several States and people of the several States will be easier to grasp.
The underlying theme—“Follow the money!”
Article I Ă‚Â§ 8.5 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...” and at Article I Ă‚Â§ 10.1, stipulates that, “No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...” At Article I Ă‚Â§8.6, Congress is granted power, “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting and Securities and current Coin of the United States...”
There has been no constitutional amendment to alter these provisions. They remain as firmly in place today as they were in 1789. Yet there is precious little gold and silver coin in the United States or the Union of States—none in general circulation.
An old story has it that a woman once found her husband with another woman, but rather than panic, the man calmly got out of the bed, slipped on his clothes, straightened himself up, then asked his wife, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”
Does the Constitution mandate gold and silver coin as the national currency? Monetary theories and rationalization are irrelevant. Either the several States are prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a payment for debt or they aren’t. Authority to “coin” money and prescribe punishment for counterfeiting “current coin” of the United States pretty well locks the matter down. Either the several States are prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a payment for debt or they aren’t. If this prohibition lies against the States, it follows that American founders intended for Congress to provide gold and silver coin as a uniform monetary system. In fact, George Washington and others threatened not to attend the Constitutional Convention if the notion of a federal paper currency was going to be considered. The fact that minting gold and silver coin of the United States was immediately implemented speaks to the matter—the first Congress, so far as possible, carried out constitutional intent.