Travesty of Justice

This U.S. Justice System FAILURE is all too common throughout these United States:  A man takes a cell phone away from his 12-year-old daughter as punishment for her misuse of the device.  (Story)  The daughter’s mother (married to someone else) files a complaint of theft against the father.  The district attorney offers him a plea deal.  The father refuses.  A judge issues a warrant for the father’s arrest.  Cops arrest the father.  He demands a jury trial.  He wins.
WRONG — WRONG — WRONG!
This is NOT justice!!!  This man should never have been arrested in the first place.
Before anyone in the Justice System acts, they must first ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution and State Law as demanded by their oath of office and expected by the citizens who pay their salaries.  They have a duty to themselves and the citizens they swore to “serve and protect” to NEVER act in a manner that runs afoul of “the supreme Law of the Land” or any lawfully derived state or federal law.
Thankfully, “Dallas County Criminal Court Judge Lisa Green ordered the jury to find Jackson not guilty, citing insufficient evidence to prove a theft charge.”
 
Unfortunately, “Although Jackson won the case and is allowed to keep the phone, he said he has had to separate himself from Steppe and his daughter because of this incident. ‘I can’t ever have a relationship with them again,’ he said.”
 
This wasn’t justice.  It was a travesty of justice.  The father was acting squarely within his right and responsibility as a parent.  Our Constitution specifically states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights).  Nowhere does either the Constitution or the Texas State Constitution give the state the power or authority to second-guess the parent under these circumstances.  Meanwhile, countless precedent established under case law substantiates parental authority over child ownership.  That’s why you never leave any significant sum of money to a child.  One or the other parent can take it.  Instead, you leave it in a trust, to which the child has limited and monitored access until they’re either eighteen or as otherwise specified in the trust.
As a result of this travesty of justice, the father and daughter are now as estranged as were the father and his ex-wife.  The father is out many thousands of dollars defending his rightful actions as a parent.
This comedy of errors could have been prevented at any stage:
 
1.  This error should have ended with the wife backing up her daughter’s father.
2. The wife’s current husband, himself a police officer, should have advised his wife that a parent taking something away from a child is both lawful, and in the case of misuse, morally right.
3. The Dallas County Judge should have REFUSED to issue a warrant for the man’s arrest for taking his daughter’s cell phone. That is not only his right, as a parent, to withhold any and all property from his child in response to inappropriate behavior by the child, but it is the responsibility of the parent to do so.  It doesn’t matter if that property is a cell phone or a car. Ownership is subject to parental consent.
 
4.  If the warrant for his arrest specified the cell phone, the responding officers should have refused to serve it, commensurate with their sworn duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  What kind of law enforcement officers do We the People want, anyway?  Those who “just follow orders” or those who know and respect the law, beginning with the most important source of all, our Constitution — “the supreme Law of the Land?”
 
5.  The judge heading up the jury trial should have looked into the case and tossed it for being groundless BEFORE it was brought to trial. That alone cost the man thousands of dollars in legal fees and very unnecessarily so.
 
This case is a prime example of what’s WRONG with our justice system today: NOBODY throughout the entire chain is doing their JOB, which is first and foremost to keep things at the lowest possible level. Instead, they allow everything to be elevated, costing INNOCENT PEOPLE thousands of dollars until they’re “cleared.”
I call that “organized crime.”  It’s a FAILURE of RESPONSIBILITY at all levels of the justice system: The cops, the lawyers, the judge who issued the warrant, the arresting officers, and the judge who let it go to trial.

BIG FAT FAIL

And We the People are the ones being screwed out of our hard-earned dollars yet again.
Each and every single individual involved in that chain of errors should be SUED TO KINGDOM COME. This is NOT what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  Our system of justice was NOT established to provide lofty incomes for those who ignore common sense while trampling on the Constitutional rights and freedoms of American citizens.
Yes, this is a fairly minor matter.  Yet it happens all the time, often with much poorer outcomes.  It happens all the time in cases involving far more significant sums of money, too.  The problem is that this is happening all the time, at all levels, and once you’re sucked into the system, even the most favorable outcome will cost you thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars.
Ladies and gentlemen, the system of justice as envisioned by our Founding Fathers was true, right, and just.  The system as it exists is a fantastically warped mockery designed to perpetuate and pad the system at the expense — rather than support — of We the People.

Your Life WITHOUT Your Constitutional Rights

Joe Biden recently said, “No ordinary American cares about their Constitutional rights.”

I beg to differ.  In fact, if you were to ask any ordinary American if they would accept the following infringements upon their rights, I guarantee you that more than 95% of them would respond with a huge “HELL NO!”

1.  The government would establish a single religion; alternatively, they would ban religion altogether, including the People’s freedom to practice their own religion.

2.  The government would restricts or removes the ability of the People to speak or write freely about any issue.

3.  The government would restrict the right of all media to report the truth, and instead feed them the government’s version of the truth.

4.  The People would no longer be free to assemble.  They would be require to obtain permits for all events outside gatherings of immediate family members.

5.  The People would no longer be allowed to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms, the most powerful defense against despots and governmental tyranny.

6.  The Government would force the People to house and feed armed “peacekeepers” any time the government so orders.

7.  The Government would no longer require a warrant to stop the People, search their persons, vehicles, and homes, and  seize anything they so desired, without a warrant or any legal recourse whatsoever.

8.  People would be held against their will, indefinitely, to answer for a serious crime merely on the whim of the government.

9.  People could be tried for the same crime over and over again, no matter how many times they were acquitted.

10.  People would be compelled to bear witness against themselves.

11.  People would be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.  Forfeiture of private property and its sale to add to the government coffers would become routine.

12.  People could await trial indefinitely, particularly if the government thinks they “have their man” — even when they don’t — but their case is so weak it wouldn’t hold up.

13.  People could be tried in absentia, that is, they would have no right to a legal defense.

14.  People could sue one another without any right to a jury trial.

15.  The government could impose as high a bail as they wished, including $inifity.  Try paying that one as you wait for your trial who’s date has been pushed out to the edge of forever.

16.  The government would deny or disparage all remaining rights of the People at will.

17.  The government would usurp all states rights and abolish all state governments and programs.

This list is merely from the Bill of Rights.  There are 17 other amendments out there, along with hundreds of precepts written into the Constitution itself in order to prevent tyranny here in America.

The idea of “benign totalitarianism” is a MYTH.  There never has been a “benevolent dictator” throughout all of history.

Why Gun Control Laws and No Firearms Signs Do NOT Work

I’m writing this in the wake of this morning’s shootings at an after-midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. Deranged gunman James Holmes entered the theater, shot 71 people, killing 12 of them, before police arrived just 90 seconds later.I’m also writing this as a graduate of Virginia Tech, where a similarly deranged gunman Seung-Hui Cho shot 49 people, killing 32 of them. The Virginia Tech massacre remains the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history, and occurred in the same halls in which I spent many hours myself.

The victims in both instances had something in common: They were unarmed. In the case of the theater, they have a no firearms policy. Cinemark’s official firearms policy is no OC/CC except for LEOs. If you want to watch a movie in their theater, you must forfeit your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, your right to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. In the case of Virginia Tech, their “gun-free zone” was seen by Cho as a “free-fire zone,” for some simple reason: When you disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, you remove a powerful deterrent to crime — the most powerful deterrent, according to violent criminals.

Some people opinion if we were to get rid of all firearms, we wouldn’t have this problem, yet when England followed this course of action, their rate of violent crime soared by 77%.2 Why? Simple — because their victims were now unarmed. Apparently Australia thought they could do better than their former warden and enacted the same measures, with similarly dismal results. Put simply, gun control is a naive and idealistic attempt to lesson one’s fear of guns or gun-related crimes. The problem is, not only is gun control futile, it actually increases the likelihood of violent crime.

Our Founding Fathers knew this well. Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is widely recognized throughout the annuls of American History. Thomas Jefferson said “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”3 In their 24-page 1982 Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, our U.S. Congress concluded, “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.” (attached) Furthermore, “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”4
The laying down of arms in any manner, whether through gun control laws or frequenting establishments sporting “No Firearms” signs, is counterproductive to a peaceful society. Perhaps the most insightful treatise on why this is so was well-explained by Thomas Paine in his “Thoughts on Defensive War” in 1775:

[A]rms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.
The soundness of this wisdom has repeatedly been echoed throughout our nation’s history, even in recent times: “I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th Century ‘strait jacket’…Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many. In my judgement the people of no nation can lose their basic liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced and respected so as to afford continuous protection against old, as well as new, devices and practices which might thwart those purposes.”5

In fact, our Supreme Court reaffirms this as well. In District of Columbia vs Heller, they held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense, even in federal enclaves. Later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Why then is Hollywood Theaters erecting “No Firearms” signs at all their theaters today? Are they merely ignorant of the fact that it’s not only a Constitutional right, but that the exercise of that right is actually a known, proven deterrent to violent crime, even in the case where the perpetrator is criminally insane? Do they not understand that the mere act of posting a “No Firearms” sign greatly increases the likelihood that their establishment will be targeted by criminals, mass shooters, and Islamic extremists?  Don’t know they that they are actually — and significantly — increasing the risks of loss of life, limb, and property for themselves, their employees, and their customers?

For that matter, why does any institution restrict or prohibit the ability of honest, law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against these events?

That’s just stupid!

I both open carry (OC) and concealed carry (CC). In recent years I’ve been waffling about whether or not I should carry at all when I’m at the movies. They’re so peaceful and safe, right? I mean no one would ever go on a rampage in a crowded theater…

As we learned today, we never know where these events will happen. They can and have happened at the movies. They can and have happened at public areas, college campuses, supermarkets, post offices, and public parks. Despite the fact that people can legally carry a firearm in most areas throughout 49 states, these events seem to happen most often where people are prohibited from carrying firearms, areas those who claim are “safe” call “no-gun zones.” Those of us who’re more knowledgeable about how and why criminals choose their targets refer to them as “free-fire zones,” and we do our best to avoid them!

Why is it, then, that the most common knee-jerk reaction to these incidents are to create more such zones, thereby increasing the likelihood of such an event? If a course of action continually proves to have the opposite outcome than the one that’s desired, it’s time to change the course of action. The relaxation of gun control laws over the last twenty years has had a tremendously positive impact on the reduction of crime! Criminals, even insane ones, don’t target a well-armed populace.

Hollywood Theaters and others who throw up knee-jerk “No Firearms” signs are doing their honest, law-abiding customers a grave disservice. What they should be doing is posting the following sign:

firearms welcome

References
1
Link to MSNBC article

2James Slack, “The most violent crime rate in Europe: Britain is also worst than South Africa and the U.S.,” Daily Mail U.K., July 2, 2009. Link.

3Draft Constitution for Virginia, 1776

4Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).

5Justice Hugo Black, dissenting in Adamson v. California (1947)

Please join us in discussing this article on RYOC Forums!