posted 01-07-2003 08:20 PM            

COMING TO A CITY GOVERNMENT NEAR YOU.


SAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS CAMPAIGN

Resolution Title: Austin Liberty Preservation Resolution
Drafted by Alex Jones on 01/07/02

Summary: Resolution to Oppose the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security's Activation of NORTHCOM, the Designation of the United States as a Nation under Military Law under the NORTHCOM, and Related Unconstitutional Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives.

WHEREAS, the City of Austin was founded and exists according to the laws of the Texas State Constitution and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, both of which guarantee the citizenry the protection of the unalienable rights granted them by their Creator; and

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Texas State Constitution guarantee all persons living in the United States these inviolate rights including - freedom of speech; freedom of religion, assembly and petition; the right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment protecting the population from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection to all people; equity before the law and the presumption of innocence; the right to hear the charges against you and to face your accuser; access to council and judicial proceedings; and the right to a fair, speedy and public trial; and

WHEREAS, the USA Patriot Act signed by George W. Bush on October 26, 2001 has hundreds of provisions that contradict the above mentioned rights, and in the words of Texas' District 14 Representative in Congress, Ron Paul, "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution...This is why they revolted in the first place...They revolted against much more mild oppression."(Ron Paul speaking about the Patriot Act in Insight Magazine, article title: Police State published Nov 9, 2001); and

WHEREAS, examples of the provisions in the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security NORTHCOM, Executive Orders, and Presidential Decision Directives are designed specifically and are being implemented to violate the United States Constitution and the Texas State Constitution as well as the rights outlined in city charters are as listed:

- Gives the Attorney General and Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups including political and religious organizations as "terrorist organizations" under the "Enemy Combatant" designation

-The "Enemy Combatant" designation gives law enforcement the unprecedented power to secretly seize citizens and non-citizens without ever charging them with a crime, and the dictatorial elements of the Federal Government claim the right to detain these "Enemy Combatants" indefinitely, at secret, secure military installations inside and outside the United States and to deny them legal representation, all of this while never being charging them with a crime or telling them why they are being held. The Justice Department also claims the right to execute those designated "Enemy Combatant" in secret after a trail by secret military tribunal.

-Grants power to the Attorney General to subject citizens of other nations to indefinite detention as well as transporting them to third-party countries like Egypt and Morocco, where the Justice Department claims they can legally be tortured

-Authorizes total surveillance on confidential communications between attorneys and their clients in Federal custody in terrorism and non-terrorism cases

-Limits disclosure of public documents and records under the Freedom of Information Act

-Changes the definition in the United States code of the term "Domestic Terrorism." In Section 802 of HR 3162, known as the USA Patriot Act the new definition is amended to include "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State." Under the new definition, the violation of any Federal or State law could generate a Justice Department designation of "Enemy Combatant" to the accused, who would then become subject to all the dictatorial horrors this designation brings as detailed above

-Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act allows any branch of the Federal or State Governments to break into your home or business, to remove any items (or place items) they wish without a warrant and without informing the person or business of this total violation of the Fourth Amendment.

-Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act also decapitates the First Amendment protection of Freedom of Speech by forcing silence on those victimized by their Unconstitutional, warrantless searches.

-Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement expanded authority to obtain library and book store records (violating the Fourth Amendment) all the while prohibiting librarians and store workers from informing patrons of monitoring or information requests (violating the First Amendment)

-The USA Patriot Act is the enabling legislation empowering the reorganization from the International to the local level through the Homeland Security enforcement mechanism. The reorganization of the government under Homeland Security is centralized in the new North American Military Command. We are witnessing a complete transformation of the governmental structures in America. The new system that is emerging, what President George W. Bush calls "the Homeland" is right out of a college textbook detailing the development, expansion and maintenance of dictatorships. The Homeland Security system is the institutionalization of a military-industrial complex dictatorship. It is all color of law, finding its roots in Imperial Rome and fascist Germany.

-There are 1016 sections to the USA Patriot Act. It significantly expands the government's ability to access sensitive medical, mental health, financial, and educational records about individuals. It removes any burden of proof required to conduct telephone and Internet surveillance.

-The Office of Homeland Security and its Department of Total Information Awareness Network, run by convicted felon Admiral John Poindexter has proudly announced that every phone call we make, fax we send, letter we mail, and magazine we subscribe to will be carefully scrutinized.

-The Office of Homeland Security has also stated that it will contract with private corporations to carry out warrantless surveillance and data collection against the American people, creating a seamless web of Big Brother tyranny.

-The United States military is being authorized to designate American citizens "Enemy Combatants" and is being given the job to patrol America internally, in complete violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that strictly forbids military forces engaging in search and seizure operations inside the United States.

-The Pentagon has announced its wish to put 356,000 troops on the streets of America to engage in law enforcement activities. The Pentagon has stated that their mission of fighting terrorism includes fighting crime of all types.

-The Pentagon has also signed agreements with Canada and Mexico to bring foreign armies into the continental United States for "peacekeeping and anti-terror operations."

WHEREAS, the President and his allied agencies are using the crisis of September 11th to attack the bedrock freedoms that are the birth right of all Americans and that our Veterans have fought and died to preserve and protect; and

WHEREAS, over thirty cities in the United Sates have passed similar resolutions condemning the wholesale dismantling of our Constitutional Republic; and

RESOLVED that the City of Austin affirms its strong opposition to terrorism, but also affirms that any efforts to end terrorism not be used as a pretext to destroy the fundamental rights and liberties of the people of Austin, Texas, the United States and the world; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the actions of the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security's Activation of NORTHCOM, the Designation of the United States as a Nation under Military Law under the NORTHCOM, and Related Unconstitutional Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives are aiding, by their bad example, the spread of a worldwide governmental movement in which this model for total dictatorship is duplicated to the detriment of the human condition; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Austin, Texas affirms the rights of all people, including United States citizens and citizens of other nations living within the City in accordance with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that, to the extent legally possible, no City employee or department shall assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, that are in violation of individuals' God-given rights that are simply enumerated by the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Austin City Council calls upon all private citizens and organizations including residents, employers, educators, and business owners to protect and defend the United States Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic and to demonstrate outspoken respect for the rights that have been paid for with so much blood by veterans and patriots throughout time, and to study the Bill of Rights so that they can recognize and resist attempts to undermine our Constitutional Republic and the system that has brought our civilization so much success; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Austin call on our United States Representatives and Senators to monitor the implementation of the USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security's Activation of NORTHCOM, the Designation of the United States as a Nation under Military Law under the NORTHCOM, and Related Unconstitutional Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives cited herein and to actively work for the repeal of them as well as the repeal of all Unconstitutional laws that violate the fundamental rights and liberties as stated in the United States Constitution and its amendments.

Introduced for the people of Central Texas' consideration by Alex Jones

Note: Resolutions similar to this one have passed in at least 30 other cities across America, with hundreds of other city and county governments considering passage of similar resolutions. As news spreads of what Homeland Security is really doing to our beloved American system, resistance will only spread. This document is an adaptation of resolutions passed in other cities. The writer felt it was vitally important to add more detail and to expose the role of Homeland Security and NORTHCOM if this scientifically-crafted takeover is to be stopped.

posted 01-08-2003 08:15 PM            

And now for governemnt 101...

Definitions to keep in mind when thinking about our form of government

a.. A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

b.. A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.

c.. A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.

d.. Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy.

e.. Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.

Jim Dixon, 1st V.P., KC3
(Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed) http://www.kc3.com

posted 01-08-2003 08:20 PM            

You're a class act Florida.

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT....

BUSH IS A LIAR, A TYRANT AND A TRAITOR TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!

posted 01-10-2003 06:32 AM            

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel opon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here meens traffic safty enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicie registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted opon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Iegislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licencing requirements, mandatary insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."

"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Iimitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"Where rights secured by the Constitutian are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictlons on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers".

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and prorect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

Government, in requirng the people to file for "drivers Iicenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehidle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to traveI "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue In these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leare it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).

#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers licence, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".)

We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the 5tates powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroniously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."

OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."

What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortabie to do so...let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!"

If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of tbeir Constitutionally protected rights.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory Iicencing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered":

"TH£ CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily activitits, is the exercise of a most basic right.

posted 01-10-2003 06:35 AM            

From: DMN Correspondent Billy-Joe Mauldin

KANSAS CITY -- The Comfort Inn here was the third stop for Freedom Drive, 2002, and the place where Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) researcher Suzanne Nevling of San Francisco, California produced a copy of "Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States."

The book, published under authority of the War Department in 1825, proves that the original 13th Amendment that prohibits Americans from holding Titles of Nobility, was part of the Constitution until it was mysteriously replaced with a new 13th Amendment that banned slavery after the Civil War. "When we found this book last September we knew that we had found that the original 13th Amendment was part of the Constitution as of 1825," Nevling said.

Previous TONA research proves that on March 12, 1819, Virginia became the 13th and final state required for ratification of the original 13th Amendment when it published in the laws of Virginia Act No. 280 as passed by its legislature.

TONA research has shown that the state of Virginia forwarded copies of its revised code to the Department of State, the Congress, the Library of Congress and the President.

There is no indication in the Congressional Record or any other official journal that the original 13th Amendment has been repealed. In the absence of a lawful explanation as to the whereabouts of the missing 13th Amendment, we have little choice but to infer that it is still the law of the land and those who hold titles of nobility or receive largesse from foreign nations are no longer American citizens. Such persons, per the Amendment, are not capable, "... of holding any office of trust or profit..."

The original 13th Amendment is found in copies of the Constitution published up to 1876. From that point on, the original 13th Amendment no longer appears and is replaced by the 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery. It is still a mystery as to how the slavery amendment,
ratified under President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, replaced the title of nobility amendment of 1819 in all copies of the Constitution published since 1876.

TONA researchers have been doggedly trying to find out where a properly ratified and never repealed constitutional amendment has been hiding for the last 126 years. Though the exact political location of the missing 13th Amendment has eluded them since David Dodge began researching the issue in the early 1980s, Nevling believes that the final pieces of the
TONA puzzle will reveal themselves in due course.

Now more than ever We currently live in an era where advances in communications, travel and commerce have all but dissolved the boundaries of sovereign nations. Adding to the intrigue we have the governments of what remains of sovereign nations operating under credit afforded them by multinational corporation-owned banks that hold the assets and resources of the nation as collateral on the loans. If there has ever been a period in American history where influential persons may be compelled to compromise national security in trade for titles of nobility, presents, pensions, salaries, offices or other "emoluments," it is now.

The purpose of the original 13th Amendment, which at the time of its ratification had popular support, was to add severe penalties to prohibitions against the acceptance of titles of nobility or other favors from foreign powers as found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution.

The Founders understood that history was replete with examples of how public servants accepted favors from foreign interests to the severe detriment of national security. The Founders concern was so great they addressed it in the first article of the Constitution.

The Founders saw that the Constitutional provision alone was not sufficient to deter influential individuals from entering into potentially disastrous relationships with representatives of foreign nations. The result was ratification of the original 13th Amendment during the administration of President James Monroe.

"This Article of Amendment is intimately connected to questions of war and national defense. It is designed to combat internal subversion and discord sowed by people who are adhering to foreign powers without stepping across the bold Constitutional line of treason," TONA researchers explain.

All attorneys and judges who claim the title "esquire," a title of English nobility beneath knighthood and extended to professional men, are incapable of holding public office under the Amendment. If enforced, nearly half the legislators in office throughout America would be removed from office and stripped of their citizenship.

A partial list of influential Americans who have been "honorarily" knighted by the Queen of England include Henry Kissinger, Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, Casper Weinberger, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Sr., Rudy Giullani and Alan Greenspan. If the real 13th Amendment were enforced those men would be stripped of their citizenship and would not be allowed to hold positions of public trust.

Sir Alan Greenspan is often referred to as the most powerful man in America because he is the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board -- the consortium of private international bankers who control the U.S. money supply.

Sir Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state under President Nixon and the man whose foreign policies have been behind nearly every genocidal event on earth since WWII (according to a 36-page report in Harper's magazine [The Making of a War Criminal, Feb. 26, 2000]) has been
nominated to head an independent investigation of the 9-11 tragedy.

Sir Colin Powell is the current Secretary of State.

Sir George Bush, Sr., is the father of current President George Bush, Jr., and has arguably been the real U.S. president since the Sir Ronald Reagan era began in 1980.

With so many of the queen's knights holding American public office, one has to wonder who really won the Revolutionary War. The U.S. government is comprised of men who, while entrusted with our most vital national security interests, have accepted favors from foreign interests -- the same favors which are prohibited by both the Constitution and a (missing?) constitutional amendment.

"[Enforcement of the original 13th Amendment would be] particularly applicable today in the 21st Century as government is increasingly for sale to the highest bidder, as foreign and multinational corporations and individuals compete to line the pockets of politicians and political parties to accommodate and purchase protection or privilege, i.e. honors, for their special interests," commented the TONA Research Committee.

"The law is still there," the group insists, waiting only to be publicly recognized and enforced once again to protect the Sovereignty and Interests of WE THE PEOPLE, and to force the elected representatives of the people to adhere strictly to their solemn and binding oath of office and the limitations of government imposed by the Constitution.

Those interested in the quest to find the political hiding place of the missing 13th Amendment should visit the website at www.amendment-13.org. The TONA Research Committee has been posting the results of its research at the site which contains both text and electronic images of documents critical to the investigation.
http://www.amendment-13.org/publications.html#mil_law http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-1.jpg http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-2.jpg http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-3.jpg http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-4.jpg http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-5.jpg http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-6.jpg
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20021214.htm

posted 01-10-2003 08:54 AM            

Can you imagine if the majority of the public knew about amendment 13, and THE REST of the constitutional amendments?

posted 01-10-2003 09:08 AM            

Now it's official. The government can try any civilian in secret, detain them indefintely, privately execute them and tell NO ONE they have done so.

It's much more important to worry about what the NY giants are up to or wether or not "friends" will be on tonight.

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL:

posted 01-24-2003 04:16 PM            

quote:

---

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Let's see I guess being in my car minding my own business is now probable cause. Hmmmmmm

And another thing why are they looking for guns in Florida? It is perfectly legal here to have a gun in your car. You only need a Conceal Carry permit to carry on your person. Perception that guns are illegal, is the racket here.

That and YOU MUST PRESENT YOUR PAPERS! (NO PLEASE ABOUT IT)

Here is the main web site. http://www.roadblock.org

The following is a sample from the sunshine state
http://www.roadblock.org/roadblocks/fl.htm

Florida Roadblocks
Town/City/Municipality: Broward County, Ft Laud-Dania-Hollywood
Description of roadblock location: Griffin Road, westbound before 441/SR7
Time of day: Any time
Purported purpose of roadblock: Registration, Alcohol, Insurance, Drugs, Firearms, Destination, Criminial Convictions, Racial Profiling, Travel Activities, Dogs
Regularity of roadblock: Infrequently set up but location remains constant
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped only a few vehicles (less than 25%)
Registry dates: 01/2003

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
I was waved through, but a friend was stopped and asked all the routine questions, refused the search, paperwork was in order, allowed to leave because there were alot of people being searched already.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/City/Municipality: Fort Lauderdale
Description of roadblock location: Oakland Park BLVD, westbound around US-1
Time of day: Late night
Purported purpose of roadblock: Registration, Alcohol, Insurance, Drugs, Firearms, Destination, Criminial Convictions, Racial Profiling, Travel Activities, Dogs
Regularity of roadblock: Frequently set up in this area, but exact location changes
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped and checked 25% to 75% of vehicles
Registry dates: 01/2003

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
This roadblock is multi-agency, it's 1 block east or 3 blocks west of US-1, all cars must slow, 1 out of 5 is waved into a parking lot, cops are watching and pull people who avoid it. I was detained for 45 minutes, handcuffed, searched, assaulted, and threatened because I refused a search. I never go anywhere without my camcorder from now on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/City/Municipality: Lake Wales
Description of roadblock location: Hwy 60, at Hwy 27 & Hwy 60, Easd Bound Lane
Time of day: Pm Rush Hour
Purported purpose of roadblock: Seatbelts
Regularity of roadblock: Set up at this location on a regular or frequent basis
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped and checked all cars or most vehicles (more than 75%)
Registry dates: 11/2002

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
Stops all cars with persons not wearing seat belts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/City/Municipality: Panama City
Description of roadblock location: County road 390 at 231 int
Time of day: Mid-day
Purported purpose of roadblock: Alcohol, Drugs, Dogs
Regularity of roadblock: Set up at this location on a regular or frequent basis
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped/checked 25% to 75% of vehicles
Registry dates: 08/2002

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
they do this every holiday so if yourcoming to panama city dontb take the short cut to the beach stay on 231

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/City/Municipality: Sarasota County
Description of roadblock location: Bee Ridge Road; between US 41 and Beneva
Time of day: Any time
Purported purpose of roadblock: Unknown
Regularity of roadblock: Frequently set up in this area, but exact location changes
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped/checked 25% to 75% of vehicles
Registry dates: 07/2001

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
Roadblocks are set up at various locations around Sarasota County, usually checking for drunk drivers but if stopped be assured they will ticket you for anything they can find. Big revenue generator for the local crooks...er, politicians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/City/Municipality: Starke
Description of roadblock location: Highway 301N
Time of day: Late night
Purported purpose of roadblock: Registration, Alcohol
Regularity of roadblock: Set up at this location on a regular or frequent basis
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped and checked all cars or most vehicles (more than 75%)
Registry dates: 07/2002

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
100% vehicles checked. When asked, officer said "routine safety check" and then offered "we're also checking for drunk drivers." When asked for my license, I gave the officer a Taiwanese International Driver's Permit (I am a caucasion American) and had no difficulty. I told the officer "my wife and I are residents of the country of Taiwan, and we're down here on vacation" as I handed him my IDP. My very obviously Chinese wife was sitting in the front passenger seat. I was asked to engage the horn, wipers, hi-beams, directionals, and then told I was "free to go." There were 3 lanes set up for searching/interrogation, and at least one family with small children were sitting on a metal guardrail while police officers were vigorously searching their car. My wife was surprised that such things happen in the US, but she hasn't been here for very long. This East-German style checkpoint was unavoidable as the road was narrowed by cones to one lane, and then all traffic was funnelled into the back parking lot of a business building which was closed at night. Welcome to the New World Order.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/City/Municipality: Starke
Description of roadblock location: US 301 at State Farmers Produce at N. end of town
Time of day: Late night
Purported purpose of roadblock: Registration, Alcohol, Insurance, Seat belts, Vehicle Safety, Child Safety Seats, Dogs
Regularity of roadblock: Infrequently set up but location remains constant
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped and checked all cars or most vehicles (more than 75%)
Registry dates: 05/2002

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
Three inspection lanes with dogs and about 20 cars with all lights flashing. Local traffic turned off about 3 blocks earlier including most trucks. Time was about 8PM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/City/Municipality: Starke
Description of roadblock location: State Road 16 and State Road 100
Time of day: PM Rush Hour
Purported purpose of roadblock: Registration, Alcohol, Insurance, Drugs, Seat belts, Vehicle Equipment, Warrants, Dogs
Regularity of roadblock: Set up at this location on a regular or frequent basis
Percentage of cars stopped or checked: Stopped and checked all cars or most vehicles (more than 75%)
Registry dates: 05/2002

Additional information about this roadblock or notes on roadblock encounter:
Roadblock about once or twice a Month on State Road 16 in Starke, Also on State Road 100 bewteen Keystone Heights and Starke. Used Dogs to search for drugs, Frisked for Drugs (luckily I had all my insurance, registration, etc.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted 12-21-2003 05:38 PM            

Bush Overruled on Enemy Combatant Case

Dec 18, 11:17 AM (ET)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VGT6E00.html

NEW YORK (AP) - President Bush does not have power to detain American citizen Jose Padilla seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The decision could force Padilla, held in a so-called "dirty bomb" plot, to be tried in civilian courts.

In a 2-to-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization.

posted 12-21-2003 07:39 PM            

Civil Liberties Safe Zones:
Three states and 227 cities, towns, and counties have passed resolutions, ordinances or ballot initiatives protecting the civil liberties of their 29,880,592 residents.

posted 04-24-2004 01:44 PM            

The Bill of Rights defense Commitee

Civil Liberties Safe Zones: Four states and 292 cities and counties have passed resolutions to protect their 50,028,314 residents' civil liberties. Hundreds more resolutions critical of the Patriot Act are in progress.