When The Looter Is The Government

Link to article

by George F. Will - May 18th, 2012 - Washington Post

Russ Caswell, 68, is bewildered: “What country are we in?” He and his wife, Pat, are ensnared in a Kafkaesque nightmare unfolding in Orwellian language.

This town’s police department is conniving with the federal government to circumvent Massachusetts law — which is less permissive than federal law — to seize his livelihood and retirement asset. In the lawsuit titled United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts, the government is suing an inanimate object, the motel Caswell’s father built in 1955. The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize it, sell it for perhaps $1.5 million and give up to 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department, whose budget is just $5.5 million. The Caswells have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. They are being persecuted by two governments eager to profit from what is antiseptically called the “equitable sharing” of the fruits of civil forfeiture, a process of government enrichment that often is indistinguishable from robbery.

Our courts are complicit in this criminal practice. Federal judges see government power as their major concern, not the protection of our citizens from the abuse of government power. There is no group of scum more afflicted with this reverence for power than the evil justices on the Supreme Court of the United States.

This practice is abhorrent. Yet the justices do nothing to stop it. They don't even perceive it is abhorrent.

JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations ... Disappear

I repeat - DISAPPEAR! [Emphasis added]

by Dianna C. Cotter with L. Donofrio Esq. - December 14th, 2011 - American Thinker

Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?

On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the country to parents who were citizens. According to the decision in Happersett:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

This is settled law for all except the "living Constitution" people who are indifferent to history and precedent. "Natural Born" is a precise legal term which means born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens. Barack Obama is not "natural born" since his father, whether a bigamist or not, was in any event not a citizen. This is true no matter when you measure it since he was not a citizen at the time of Obama the II's conception, birth, or at any time before or after.

There has been a conspiracy about this that was blurred by the idiot argument that Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in Hawaii, but born in Kenya. That argument was lost by the birthers as it should have been since it was based on wishful thinking. The evidence that his mother was in Hawaii at the time of his birth is overwhelming and beyond question. Yet now the same people who drummed up that distraction (and kept it alive) are discovered to have actually been involved in a conspiracy more egregious - a conspiracy to hide the fact that under settled law Barack Obama II should never have been on the ballot as a candidate for President.

He was not, is not, and can never become a "natural born citizen". He IS a citizen under the post civil war Fourteenth Amendment, but that does not make him "natural born". They are two distinctly different issues.

Kansas Man Sues Couple He Took Hostage

Only in America can the criminal sue the victim

by Staff - November 30th, 2011 - KMBC TV

Can there be no trust between a kidnapper and his hostages?

A man who held a Kansas couple hostage in their home while fleeing from authorities is suing them, claiming that they broke an oral contract made when he promised them money in exchange for hiding him from police. The couple has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

Jesse Dimmick of suburban Denver is serving an 11-year sentence after bursting into Jared and Lindsay Rowley's Topeka-area home in September 2009.

He threatens them with a knife, hides in their home using threats, then claims they breached a contract he had with them, obtained under this coercion, and turned him in to authorities.

What Judge would allow such a suit to proceed? Why any of the corrupt bigots who serve as Judges in the farce the American justice system represents.

Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss

The Judge hearing the case is a former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As conflicts of interest go this one is outrageous.

by Peter Roff - October 24th, 2011 - U.S. News

When voters in Ohio's 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today's culture: he sued somebody.

Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his "loss of livelihood," Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

Appointed by Barack Obama, Judge Black, the presiding Judge is neither recusing himself or ending the farce. The American court system thus finds itself taking sides in a political discussion and attempting to end the free speech rights of those on one side of the argument.

Who is surprised. When the courts embraced the abusive violation of equal rights called 'affirmative action', it stopped being a system of justice and became a political farce. Nothing in the intervening years has changed its arrogant belief that justice is whatever the majority of judges say it is. The people have no rights.

Land Seized In Kelo Decision - Used For Debris Dump

by Brian Garst - September 3rd, 2011 - Big Government

In 2005, Kelo v. City of New London made eminent domain infamous. The widely reviled Supreme Court ruling gave the go ahead for the city of New London to use eminent domain for taking private property in order that it be given to a private company for “economic development.”

The public response was one of outrage. Facing the potential wrath of voters, politicians across the country moved to add new protections against such abusive seizures. But that wasn’t enough to save the homes of the folks in New London, whose property never would be developed. Pfizer, the intended beneficiary of the land theft, walked away years ago from their development plans.

Now, to add new insult to injury, the vacant lot is a dump.

A quote in the article is priceless. The arrogant totalitarian justices, lead by the brain dead Anthony Kennedy, insisted development of the land “would be executed pursuant to a 'carefully considered' development plan.” Not even close to true!

It is too bad these idiot totalitarian justices cannot be personally sued for their UN-constitutional ruling. It turns out the city of new London ultimately paid $80 million for a piece of land worth a fraction of that cost.

State Of The Union

It’s time to close the union violence loophole

by Mark Mix - September 2nd, 2011 - Washington Times

In the wake of a Verizon strike that saw clashes between union protesters and company employees, it’s worth asking a simple question: Why do union toughs have a federal “Get Out of Jail Free” card?

Most people don’t know it, but the Supreme Court’s 1973 Enmons decision exempts union officials from federal prosecution for violent activities “used to gain legitimate union objectives.” This baffling immunity gives union thugs license to harass, intimidate and even attack independent-minded workers.

According to figures compiled by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, the media has reported more than 12,000 instances of union violence over the last three decades. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg - incidents that didn’t make the morning paper point to a much larger, unreported total.

Like the incompetent and tyranny promoting rules on murder that have left our nation with the highest murder rate in the world, the courts have embraced tyranny in union organizing too.

Why are the judicial tyrants never held accountable for their ignorant rulings? Why are the American people so gullible they continue to accept our corrupt courts as a system of justice when it is so clear that nothing could be further from the truth. There is no justice in America.

Anecdotal evidence, like union thugs throwing feces on twelve year old children of strike breaking parents, is ignored by both the media and the American populace. Nothing is done. Even when arrested, the judges send these people home with, at best, a slap on the wrist. How can such acts against children be tolerated in a truly civil society?

Actually the question answers itself. It can't. Such a society has stopped being civil and has become a tyranny.

The Threat Of Liberal Judicial Activism Reaches New Heights

by Lester Jackson - August 14th, 2011 - The American Thinker

It is, of course, nothing new for critics, including justices themselves, to accuse the court of rewriting law, twisting and torturing it beyond recognition. But, until now, there was at least a pretense of making decisions based on actual law. Resort to such pretense is bad enough!

Now, however, the United States is but one justice away from a majority so arrogant and incapable of embarrassment as to see no need even to resort to this pretense in usurping the democratic process. We are perilously close to five imperial justices so hell bent on ramming their unpopular personal values down the throats of an unwilling public that they will enforce laws that they themselves acknowledge do not exist -- in this case, for the benefit an unspeakably barbaric murderer.

Really! Do such justices have anything but contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the legislative process, contempt for the Constitution that clearly specifies that process, contempt for self-government and, ultimately, contempt for the American people?

The answer to that is, of course, obvious. Contempt for the American people is at the heart of this bizarre refusal to limit their actions to actual law. The American court system as defined by the leftist judicial activists has ceased to care about justice or law. Political dogma is the only criteria for decisions.

As a result, there is no justice in America. Our courts permitted President Barack Obama to steal the lawful billions of secured creditors of General Motors and use these stolen billions to reward his union cronies with lifetime pensions that they had lost by bankrupting the corporation. It was illegal, but not a single liberal justice cared. The secured creditors had their property stolen because they were "bad people" in the eyes of the liberals. The unions were enriched because they were "good people" in the eyes of the liberals.

Only political bias matters at this point in the corruption of the American Republic. We have become a banana republic, as corrupt as any that has ever existed. This writer warns that we could lose our country and respect for the law if we do not work for the right outcome in 2012. I disagree. I say we have already lost our nation. The outcome of 2012 will determine whether we can reverse that loss.