But…But…The Constitution Says…

Kit Perez: A Disturbing True Story About American Justice

U-S-A!

U-S-A!

27 responses to “But…But…The Constitution Says…

  1. Speaking of ‘criminal justus’.

    “51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”

    Clearly the Jewish apostles were anti-Semites and needed to stoned to death…oh, wait.

    Happy Easter.

  2. Hmmmm…judges think that they’re ‘invincible’ and have ‘sovereign immunity’?…..

    As part of the parasite class they’re just as mortal as anyone else.

    Just read ‘Neither Predator Nor Prey’ the other day,..made me smile to see the fed judge ‘get a concrete grasp on reality’…same for the quisling ‘jurors’.

    When people have had enough of the boot on their necks they will deal with the parasite class..and the paid for ‘praetorians’ that offer them only momentary protection. ‘Ol Frederick Douglas told us about that…

    So much for the constructively fraudulent scrap of legalistic slavery known as the ‘constitution’ (read Royce’s ‘Hologram of Liberty’ or Spooner’s essays if you need to wake up and stop drinking the mythological lee greenwood koolaide).

    ‘Judges, Prosecutors and the rest swinging and slowly twisting in the breeze..the sport of crows and ravens’
    A sight I won’t be sorry to see at all..call it a good start to ‘environmental cleanup’…

    Yours in Daily Armed Liberty!
    NorthGunner III

  3. Every day in county,state,and fed court people are charged with shit that is so far removed from what actually took place the lying cops and prisecutors would win an Oscar if they were actors.
    Then when they run out of money after fighting for several years to get the absurd number of felony charges reduced to the misdemeanor maybe $100.00 fine “crime” that actually took place- if it even did take place-they just say fuck it and take the plea to a felony and a year or two in prison because it’s the only way to end the nightmare.
    Defend yourself when attacked and the cops and prosecutor turn in a fictional account of what took place making you into a cross between Atilla the Hun, Pol-Pot, Charlie Manson and Hannibal Lechter.
    As the saying goes- a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
    Then, after you have no money to fight and have to rely on a “public defender” you just go to prison that much sooner.
    The prosecutor works for the state the judge works for the state the oublic defender works for the state.
    One or more likely own stock in a private prison company or private probation company.
    You are screwed unless you have more money than the state.

    • Kind of makes one wonder why folks haven’t gone to war on these parasitic jackals and their badged orcs yet doesn’t it?

      When folks are so angry and they feel that they have nothing left to loose and that they’re ready, willing and able to take their tormentors with them..then you’ll see the end of the ‘parasite class’

      It’s just like the old man said,
      “The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness.”
      -Robert A. Heinlein

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty!
      NorthGunner III

      • As of now, guts get out after doing their time for some manufactured “crime” against the state and all they want to do is stay away from the orcs and do nothing to risk going back through the system, but…

        It seems there’s so much devious underhanded crap going on lately with the “justice” system that it’s only a matter of time before enough people say no more of this shit.
        So much absurd bullshit is somehow a “crime” under some obscure law or regulation that any prosecutor can – with the help of the badged orcs-at any time they choose, charge and convict anyone they choose, of some “felony” that involves prison time.
        This crap has to stop.
        If everyone charged with some bullshit “crime” refused to plead guilty to a “lesser included offense”

        • Ooops-
          The rest of the last sentence-
          and demand a jury trial and refuse to waive right to speedy trial,
          then the system would come to a screeching halt.

      • look at this coproach. what a rotten POS.

      • “Kind of makes one wonder why folks haven’t gone to war on these parasitic jackals and their badged orcs yet doesn’t it?”

        The Pacification is complete…
        Malls,Internet Porn,TV,Intoxication, oh and a Healthy Dose of Terror.

  4. POd American

    Here’s praying for jury nullification…miracles do happen.

  5. Look at how his shirt is twisted around the screw. Last action on that screw was someone trying to turn it counter-clockwise to back the screw out. Interesting.

  6. the puddles of warm piss called cops have to go.
    then move on to the next tier of human excrement.

  7. This was predicted by some when the standoff was taking place. That the thugs would retreat and come back in a different form, as lawyers and judges in a courtroom.

    This is a trial to send a message to convince us to back down. Parker and his co-defendants WILL be found guilty and will be punished harshly with everything the judge can hit them with. The message will be sent and received to us.

    The question: Will we send a message ourselves? Blood may need to be spilled.

    • ever notice just how fast they catch cop killers? Yet they can’t seem to give a shit about others. My point is it’s been good chatting with you. You kill one of them and the weight of the nation is coming for your ass.

      TheyWILL track you down with unlimited resources and it will be death by MAMBA for you.

      I’m telling you this from experience, you do not want to be hunted by the FBI, our their associates.

      Dirk

  8. The criminal justice system (a true oxymoron) is so skewed that you better hope you never get involved with it (either criminal or civil). Money – a lot of it (throw in the lawyers) and voila! you’re screwed. Just went through a rather simple ‘civil suit’ costing over 200K – lucky for us, a very well off person took the lead and ‘our side’ prevailed in an otherwise trivial suit – lesson learned, not enough money = you (or me) are screwed. As a past acquaintance told me one time, you (the generic ‘you’ out there) don’t have enough money to take on the Federal (or State) government, if they want you, they are going to get you ………..
    So much for the ‘rule of law’ and a system of ‘fair and balanced’ supporting our Constitution. What a perversion ………….

    • second. I, too had the possibility of being bankrupt thanks to the govt’s ideas on whats fair and luckily found a good laywer. I just hope I am off the radar now, but am under no illusion that when the debt crisis really hits, they will find a way to take mine, yours and everyone else short liberal royalty like susan Sarandon to keep control.

      • SemperFi, 0321

        (((irs))) has left me alone for several yrs, and as statute of limitations nears, they ramp up their efforts by imposing lien on me. Fake agents, fake signatures, and fake papers, it’s a rigged game, all of it!
        They have us all by the balls, we just don’t always know it.

  9. Trump needs to step in and pardon every one involved in the Bunkerville protest and the Malheur protest.

  10. Boxcar, courtroom, they submitted to it without a fight, which makes them wrong, too.

  11. The Constitution is working perfectly./ S//

  12. He’ll disappear into the darkness as everyone else runs and hides hoping their convenient lives aren’t the least bit effected.

  13. All is bundled up into one neat package: “It takes a village”
    Diversified into all “practices” :

    “About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26-1/2 years, filed for divorce. We
    had seven children, five daughters and two sons. Our youngest at the time,
    our second son, was five years old.

    At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her
    attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court. I met one afternoon with
    the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau,
    in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed
    by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me he general
    and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very
    cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time
    was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

    She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked
    through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in
    Arizona.

    He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other
    states — but there are differences. One significant difference he
    mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community
    Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah,
    with the exception of Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

    He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He
    said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the
    parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular
    Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The
    Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal,
    and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract. He said, in
    the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife
    and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a
    dotted line, and not officially considered included in
    the Secular Contract at all. He said, if the husband and wife wish to
    include God as a party in their marriage, that is a “dotted line” they will
    have to add in their own minds. The state’s marriage license is “strictly
    secular,” he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship
    to God being a “dotted line” meant that the State regards any mention of
    God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

    In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other
    “dotted line.” He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a
    covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined
    as one.

    This is not the case in the secular realm of the state’s marriage license
    contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and
    wife are merely contractually “joined” as business partners, not in any
    religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each
    other by another “dotted line.” The picture he was trying to “paint” was
    that of a triangle with the State at the top
    and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to
    the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the
    wife, a “dotted line” merely showing that they consider themselves to have

    entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the
    State. He further mentioned that this “religious overtone” is recognized by
    the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a
    state official or by a minister of religion that has been “deputized” by the
    State
    to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and
    executed marriage license to the State. Again, he emphasized that marriage
    is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and
    because it is looked upon as a “privileged business enterprise” various tax
    advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the
    marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a
    religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

    By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage,
    one of the best is “Principles of Community Property,” by William Defuniak.

    At the outset, he explains that Community Property law decends

    from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D.,

    written by the Spanish jurisconsults.

    In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture
    or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit
    in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase
    food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is
    replenishing the stocks of the business.

    To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business
    venture, that is, a for-profit business venture.

    Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture
    is considered to have “borne fruit.”

    Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage
    Bureau’s administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every
    contract must have consideration.

    The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself —
    the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of
    consideration by the State is “the privilege to be regulated by statute.”
    He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related
    statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all
    statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the
    commencement

    of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a
    dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along — even
    though the husband and wife didn’t realize that. My thought on this is can
    it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure
    by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A
    contract
    must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully
    informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract. Another way
    to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of
    adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a
    flawed “contract.”

    Such a contract with the State is said to be a “specific performance”
    contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

    Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and
    the implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and
    regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family
    law, children, and property.

    He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom
    places them in a definite and defined- by-law position inferior and subject
    to the State. He commented that very few people realize this. He also said
    that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage
    are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” — meaning the
    children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out
    and says so in so many words.

    In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the contract
    bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for parents to understand
    two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s.
    The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of
    In Loco Parentis. Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the
    country” or to state it more bluntly — the State is the undisclosed true
    parent.

    Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have
    no property right in their children, and have custody of their children
    during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that
    parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as
    long as they don’t offend the State, but if they in some manner displease
    the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior
    status

    and take custody and control of its children — the parents are only
    conditional caretakers.

    He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an
    ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage
    license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of
    the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract
    mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment
    debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular
    enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business
    enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage
    contract acquires property throughout its existence and over time, it is
    hoped, increases in value.

    Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime
    later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in
    existence. The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment
    of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over
    the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and
    continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over
    children brought into the marriage.

    That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce”
    a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation
    but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage
    license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual
    relationships the States has on people

    At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if
    other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant
    replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of
    anyone else asking these questions.

    He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal
    implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it
    creates with the State. His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau
    department head stated, “You have to understand that people who come in here
    to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is
    technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”
    (Laughter)

    I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more
    familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license.

    The marriage license as we know it didn’t come into existence until after
    the Civil War and didn’t become standard practice in all the states until
    after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or
    governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and
    in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages “abrogated.”

    Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.”

    “Every man to his family and his belongings”

  14. Wow, agree most don’t realize the three legged contract. It’s pure and simple, a binding business contract. They don’t mention their leg cuz most most applicants are ” young” ” dumb” ” full of cum” .

    I’ve been to a dozen weddings in as many years, where man and wife are “acknowledged”, but not licensed. Meaning they went thru the ceromony, but refused to record, the marriage, in the state. Thus keeping the state out of their business.

    Interestingly enough all were second marriages, and over forty.

    Life is the lesson.

    Dirk

  15. O yea, most states have an end run going. They recognize what I know as a common law marriage. Which means if your with your girl for seven years or more, and ” living as married people” then the state recognizes that union as a ” marriage”

    Fuckers are back dooring those who intentionally keep the state out of their affairs.

    Community property just means all proceeds are, or should be split down the middle.

    Their are legal remedies for stake holders who bring more stuff to the party.

    Dirk