tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17966253269995944472024-02-20T09:03:49.163-08:00Offender Rights!This site is dedicated to the Constitution and how it applies to criminals who have paid their debt to society. I will try to post on topics that people in general haven't heard about. Thanks for visiting.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-79404191054824850462013-06-19T21:16:00.000-07:002013-06-19T21:16:18.776-07:00Lack of Faith.<br />
<br />
One of the cornerstones of society is a court system.<br />
<br />
A redress of grievance for an injured party.<br />
<br />
If someone is wronged, it should be made right.<br />
<br />
But what happens when the vehicle used to make it right becomes corrupt?<br />
<br />
Can a <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+organisation">criminal enterprise</a> judge right from wrong with impartiality?<br />
<br />
Can they have jurisdiction over truth and justice?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Societal Faith</i></b><br />
<br />
A society must have faith in a Judicial system for that system to have any power.<br />
<br />
As our <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html">Declaration of Independence</a> states:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e9e6e2; color: #463e3e; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px;">...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...</span></blockquote>
<br />
But, if the system for justice acts in <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bad+faith">bad faith</a>, then people begin to lose their faith in that systems impartiality.<br />
<br />
How does an organization begin to act in bad faith?<br />
<br />
By violating their own rules and regulations.<br />
<br />
Officers of the court are deemed to know the law (<i><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US
622</span></i>).<br />
<br />
Knowing the law creates an issue of intent. If they know the law and it's consequences, and they still violate the law, then they do so with intent and purpose. If the court is purposely violating their own rules and procedures in order to bring a person to trial, let alone secure a conviction, does that not taint the entire proceedings? If they are knowingly violating their own rules and regulations in order to appear in court, do they not give up their jurisdiction because of the criminal element of their procedure?<br />
<br />
Does this not taint their "just powers" and nullify them?<br />
<br />
If their powers are tainted and suspect, this creates an air of "lack of faith" in that government.<br />
<br />
Historically, this leads to more vigilante justice, and eventually revolution.<br />
<br />
Take the American Revolution for instance.<br />
<br />
Did they not fight against the oppression of the British government in an effort to enjoy freedom?<br />
<br />
Our society stems from the idea of a need for faith in our government.<br />
<br />
We as a society have come full circle to where we were during the time of the Declaration of Independence.<br />
<br />
Our judiciary enforces laws passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive branch.<br />
<br />
The government is actively seeking to make money by criminally violating our rights.<br />
<br />
Crime and corruption are rife in our government, and I for one have lost all faith in them.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-86940871578019444232010-09-27T23:29:00.000-07:002010-12-02T17:10:18.686-08:00The Principles of Bills of Attainder.<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html">Bills of Attainder</a>, and their lesser version Bills of Pains and Penalties, are the one power by which governments have ruled through the ages.<br /><br />To understand a Bill of Attainder, one needs to piece together definitions from a few cases from the Supreme Court of The United States.<br /><br />-Congress can only make laws in general applicability.<br /><br />-Congress cannot choose whom the law shall apply to.<br /><br />-Congress cannot give or remove any rights that are not equally shared by all.<br /><br />-Congress cannot use a past action as a trigger for a law.<br /><br /><br />Bills of Attainder and Bills of Pains and Penalties are forbidden to Congress via the <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution">US Constitution.</a><br /><br />"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9">Article 1, Section 9</a> (excerpt)<br /><br />"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section10">Article 1, Section 10</a> (excerpt)<br /><br />And each individual state has it as a part of their constitution as well.<br /><br />Bills of Attainder (Bills of Pains and Penalties included) are such that they are targeted law against/for an easily definable group of individuals, or an individual.<br /><br />They are not required to name the party they apply to.<br /><br />The "punishment" may be inflicted absolutely, or conditionally.<br /><br />It can come in a civil form, or a criminal form.<br /><br />Their creation usually comes not from one overt act, but a series of subversive acts that accumulate over time. <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdefinitions.uslegal.com%2Fs%2Fstatutory-scheme%2F&rct=j&q=definition%20of%20statutory%20scheme&ei=DJGhTM29Coi4sQPcztSjAQ&usg=AFQjCNGUHilY6hHS0hrTeEU-9zYMBIYzkw&sig2=Gf-PEE7zeBL6qOCdwzMSeg&cad=rja">Statutory Schemes</a> are used to implement such laws.<br /><br />The simplest definition that I've been able to come up with is:<br /><br />"Any targeted law that provides for unequal benefits, or attempts to remove a right otherwise enjoyed by everyone else."<br /><br />Bills of Attainder have been used throughout history to control the populace by the government.<br /><br />Here is a list of groups that have been effected by Bills of Attainder.<br /><br />Sex Offenders<br />Jews in Germany<br />African Americans in America and Europe<br />Native Americans by Spaniards<br />Muslims by Spaniards<br />Native Americans by America<br />Jews in Egypt<br /><br />I think you get the idea.<br /><br />Bills of Attainder are the one means by which governments have been able to set up hierarchy. Without this tool, we would not have had the "classes" all throughout Europe and into America.<br /><br />One man would not be the master of another.<br /><br />As mentioned before, Bills of Attainder can also give rights that are not shared by everyone else.<br /><br />Easiest way to understand that comes from this statement:<br /><br />"If Congress gives a group a right, everyone else is being punished for not being part of that group."<br /><br />Only when people understand how Congress does this will they be able to stop it.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Citations:</span><br /><br /><a href="http://lp.findlaw.com/">FindLaw.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/">Cornell University</a><br /><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=71&invol=277">Cummings v Missouri</a> (1866)<br /><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/333/case.html">Ex Parte Garland</a> (1866)<br /><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/437/case.html">US v Brown</a> (1965)<br /><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/118/356/case.html">Yick Wo v Hopkins</a> (1886)<br /><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/328/303/case.html">US v Lovett</a> (1946)Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-11407939864908722602010-07-24T09:02:00.000-07:002010-07-24T10:03:56.630-07:00The Real Due Process.<p class="content">"The Fourteenth Amendment, in declaring that no State 'shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' undoubtedly intended . . . that equal protection and security should be given to all [and] they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts...."</p><i>- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Field, Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 35 (1885)</i><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><br /><a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law">Due<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span>Process</a><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>is a term that is difficult to define. Many courts have tried to define it, to create tests to measure it, and show equality in it.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span>But, if you look at it, and think about it, Due Process is a rather simple concept.<br /><br />The base version of Due Process is that it has a beginning, a middle, and an end.<br /><br />All three parts are equally important. Without any of those three elements, there would be a violation of Due Process.<br /><br />This leads us to the question of:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >"Where is the beginning of Due Process?"</span><br /><br />When this country was created, it was done so with the understanding that <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed51.htm">the government drew it's power from the permissions of it's citizens.</a><br /><br />As the source of the sovereignty, we have a right to have our legislation passed in accordance to the social contract created with the Constitution.<br /><br />Every time that a law is passed outside of the original construction methods that the Constitution lays out, our Due Process rights are being violated.<br /><br />The Legislative Branch does in fact have the ability to suspend our rights for a time. That leads us to an understanding of the two types of Due Process.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Procedural Due Process</span><br /><br /></span></span>"Procedurally, due process prescribes the manner in which the government may deprive persons of their life, liberty, or property. In short, the procedural guarantees of due process entitle litigants to fair process."<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span><a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+Clauses">Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com</a><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span>To take that quote and to think about it leads one to understand that our Procedural Due Process rights guarantee us that our rights will only be <span style="font-style: italic;">suspended</span> by certain methods.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span>Procedural Due Process is the method by which the government can <span style="font-style: italic;">suspend</span> our rights <span style="font-style: italic;">for a time</span>.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Substantive Due Process<br /><br /></span></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;">"</span>Substantively, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect persons from legislation infringing on certain individual rights. Such individual rights may be expressly enumerated in a constitutional provision, as are the liberties that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<span style="font-size:130%;">"<br /><br />"</span>These unenumerated rights have been derived from Supreme Court precedent, common law, history, and moral philosophy. Such rights, the Court said, "represent the very essence of ordered liberty" and embody "principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" (<i>Palko v. Connecticut</i>, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288 [1937])<span style="font-size:130%;">"</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+Clauses">Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com</a><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span>Substantive Due Process is the safeguards against encroachment of our rights by the government.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span>Now we can explore the idea of:<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">"Where is the 'middle' in Due Process?"</span><br /><br /></span></span>The "middle" in Due Process is the breaking of a law, and the beginning of the Court process.<br /><br />This is the portion that most people try to define when talking about Due Process.<br /><br />Here is where people mix up the idea of "Due Process OF law" vs. "Due Process IN law."<br /><br />"Due Process OF law" is the entirety of Law.<br /><br />"Due Process IN law" is merely in the Court Room.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span>And lastly:<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">"Where is the 'end' in Due Process?"<br /><br /></span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">The 'end' in Due Process is exactly that, the end of a courts sentence on a person.<br /><br />The finality of a sentence. The completion.<br /><br />Without that end in a sentence, not only is our Due Process rights violated, but we are put into a form of <a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm">Involuntary Servitude</a>.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">To recap, Due Process has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is very limited in it's allowance of suspension of rights, and exponential in it's protection of rights.<br /><br />A simple concept to understand, but a hard one to put into practice.<br /><br />Until you know where the boundaries are...</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span> </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><i></i>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-64820929770312960762010-05-20T19:23:00.000-07:002010-05-22T23:48:11.510-07:00The Nature Of 'Political Power' And What It Means To The Average JoeMany State Constitutions around the Country say that "All political power is inherent in the people."<br /><br />To show it a little more in depth, the Washington State Constitution states in Article One, Section One:<br /><br />"All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."<br /><br />So as I look at this section of my State Constitution, I try to understand the concepts that are wrapped up in it's language.<br /><br />All <a href="http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/political+power">political power</a> is <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inherent">INHERENT</a> in the people.<br /><br />Before there was a Government, the political powers resided in the people. These powers are so ingrained in who we are as a country that they were written into our constitutions. As our constitution was written, it was these powers that gave it the strength to set us aside from other countries.<br /><br />Governments derive their just powers from the <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consent">consent</a> of the governed.<br /><br />Without the people agreeing to being governed, our government would cease to exist. The government holds no power that we do not give it, or agree to.<br /><br />Governments... are established to <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/protect">protect</a> and <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/maintain">maintain</a> <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/individual+rights">individual rights</a>.<br /><br />We the people, using our authority as <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sovereign">sovereigns</a>, created a government that was to "protect and maintain our individual rights." Our population was getting big enough that we created a government to help protect us, and to make sure that our rights were maintained. They were to be maintained not only from the <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/usurpation">usurpation</a> of others citizens, but also from the laws created, as well as in the court system.<br /><br />It is the constitution that defines and assigns the powers that the government enjoys. It was the sovereignty of the people that gave that constitution power.<br /><br />Without the consent of the governed, the government has no power.<br /><br />So here is a question:<br /><br />If all political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their "just powers" from the consent of the governed, then what happens when they don't "protect and maintain individual rights?"<br /><br />Our government is starting to believe that "it" is the sovereign. They have forgotten in their greed and corruption that it is us that gave them any power to begin with.<br /><br />Remember, YOU are a sovereign. Does that mean that you have the right to take other sovereigns powers? NO. It just means that when it comes to political power, it comes from you, not the government.<br /><br />I write this article in the hopes of teaching my fellow citizens about the nature of political power. With the understanding of that nature, you are better suited to help protect not only your own powers, but the powers of your friends, family, and neighbors as well.<br /><br />When faced with a problem, without action, there can be no solution.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-75651163445900717312010-02-23T08:42:00.000-08:002010-07-25T18:23:16.112-07:00Bill of Attainder Revisited.A long time ago, I wrote a piece on Bills of Attainder. It was 14 pages long.<br /><br />This time, I'm going to keep it short, sweet, and too the point.<br /><br />I've learned a lot in the last almost two years.<br /><br />So here goes...<br /><br /><br /><br />A Bill of Attainder boils down to one key component.<br /><br />It is any legislation passed in which the legislators assume your guilt without you having ever gone to trial. They then proscribe your punishment in their law.<br /><br />For example, some states have DUI Registries. It is assumed (and sometimes backed up with studies) that you (the DUI criminal) will commit your crime again. So, since you are guilty of a future offense of driving under the influence, then you must submit to having your name plastered all across the land.<br /><br />Or, in Hawaii, if you are merely charged with a crime, their Sheriff's website will put you up on their front page. Doesn't matter if you are found not guilty, they still have you up on the internet as presumed guilty.<br /><br />The easiest way to argue the "punishment" aspect of Bills of Attainder is to realize that our Rights, inalienable as they are, once removed, constitutes punishment. To take someones God given right, is punishment in and of itself. It doesn't matter if the "law" is Civil in nature, or Criminal in nature. The removal of an enjoyment of rights is a punishment.<br /><br />The other part of Bills of Attainder that needs to be slightly clarified is the area of "targeted legislation."<br /><br />It is stated in the US Constitution that we are to have Equal Protection. <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/437/">Any legislation that targets and singles out an individual, or an easily ascertainable group of individuals, and creates a law different for them versus the rest of society, is a Bill of Attainder.</a><br /><br />Remember, I am not a lawyer. I am a student of the Constitution. IF you feel that there is action that needs to be taken, please consult a Lawyer for guidance.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-63189342449955499792009-12-29T13:23:00.000-08:002009-12-29T11:28:08.557-08:00Oath of Office and Affirmations.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span></span></span></span>In the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause that says "<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">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; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.</span>" (Article VI, paragraph 3)<br /><br />According to the dictionary, an <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/oath">Oath</a> is:<br /></span><p><i>"Any type of attestation by which an individual signifies that he or she is bound in conscience to perform a particular act truthfully and faithfully; a solemn declaration of truth or obligation.</i></p> <p><i>An individual's appeal to God to witness the truth of what he or she is saying or a pledge to do something enforced by the individual's responsibility to answer to God.</i></p> <p>Similarly an affirmation is a solemn and formal declaration that a statement is true; however, an affirmation includes no reference to God so it can be made by someone who does not believe in God or by an individual who has conscientious objections against swearing to God. Provisions in state statutes or constitutions ordinarily allow affirmations to be made as alternatives to oaths.</p> <p>In order for an oath to be legally effective, it must be administered by a public official. The law creating each public office and describing the duties of the official ordinarily indicates who is authorized to administer the oath of office. A spoken oath is generally sufficient; however, a written and signed oath can be required by law."</p><p>And the Oath they must take is: "<span style="font-style: italic;">I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.</span>" (This is the Congressional Oath of Office. Different positions require different wording, but the idea is the same.)</p><p>Everyone that swears an oath (or affirmation) swore to uphold the Constitution. They didn't swear to uphold the laws that are written, but to uphold the Constitution. That means in making the law, the enforcement of that law, and how that law is used in Court.</p><p>When someone breaks, or violates their Oath, there are strong and serious consequences for that.</p><p>A Congressperson can be removed from office, a lawyer dis-barred, and a Judge pulled from his/her bench and dis-barred as well as all of their cases being suspect.<br /></p><p>The Code in each State has different punishments for violating the Oath of Office for State Government workers. But the US Code is universal enough to be shown here.</p><p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00007311----000-.html">5 US 7731</a> Section 8(5) says: "<span style="font-style: italic;">Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.</span>"<br /></p><div border="0" width="100%" class="notes"> So when anyone (Congress, Judges, Lawyers, etc.) helps to deprive citizens of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States through force, or coercion, is violating not only their Oath of Office, but the US Code as well. If they are waging war on the Constitution by their actions, they are violating this section as well.<br /><br />The punishment for Congress for waging war on the Constitution (and thus the US Government) is found in a different section.<br /><h2 style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/93/1918">18 U.S.C. § 1918</a> says: "<span style="font-style: italic;">Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">" (The conditions of who this applies to can be read at the link given.)<br /></span></h2>And another consequence for violating 7731 is a Civil Suit under <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html">1983 law</a>.<br /><br />When an Unconstitutional law is passed by Congress, upheld in court by the Judges and the Lawyers, the consequences for those actions are fairly strong. Lawyers are dis-barred, Judges impeached, and Congress people are removed from office and never allowed to hold office again.<br /><br />Charges of Oath of Office are a serious thing. And not to be brought about without some serious facts to back it up.<br /><br />And lastly, please remember, I am not a Lawyer. This is not legal advice, but merely my understanding of things that I found in the Constitution. If you wish to use this information, please consult a Lawyer.<br /></div>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-61921368240830755092009-11-03T22:39:00.000-08:002009-11-03T23:45:44.544-08:00Stigma- The Antithesis of Liberty<b>stig·ma</b> <script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<a href="\" target="\"><img src="\" border="\" /></a>", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FS%2FS0757100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4c1ca64c&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><table><tbody><tr><td><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FS%2FS0757100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4c1ca64c&u=audio" wmode="transparent" width="17" align="texttop" height="15"></embed><noscript><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/S0757100/stigma" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /></a></noscript> (stĭg'mə)</td></tr></tbody></table><script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<a href="\" target="\"><img src="\" border="\" /></a>", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FS%2FS0757100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4c1ca64c&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><ol type="1"><li><p>A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach: <i>"Party affiliation has never been more casual . . . The stigmata of decay are everywhere"</i> <i>(Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)</i> See Synonyms at <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stain">stain</a>.</p></li><li><i>Archaic</i> A mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave; a brand.</li></ol><br />Token of Infamy, Disgrace, Reproach, a Brand.<br /><br />All of these are tools to keep the "criminal" from interacting with the rest of society. Criminals are a hated group of society, but one group of criminals brings out the animalistic nature of humans.<br /><br />Sex Offenders.<br /><br />Stigma is so heavily attached to sex offenders that a mere accusation is enough to raise the hackles of most people.<br /><br />Why is this important? Stigma removes Liberty.<br /><br /><strong>lib·er·ty</strong><strong></strong> <span class="pronset"><script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<a href="\" target="\"><img src="\" border="\" /></a>", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FL02%2FL0228100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4c1ca64c&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FL02%2FL0228100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4c1ca64c&u=audio" wmode="transparent" width="17" align="texttop" height="15"></embed><noscript><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/L02/L0228100" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /></a></noscript> <span class="show_ipapr" style="display: none;"><span class="prondelim">/</span><span class="pron">ˈlɪb<img class="luna-Img" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" alt="" border="0" />ər<img class="luna-Img" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" alt="" border="0" />ti</span><span class="prondelim">/</span> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html" target="_blank"><img class="luna-Img" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif" onmouseover="swapLunaImage('default', this);" onmouseout="swapLunaImage('selected', this);" border="0" /></a> <span class="pron_toggle" style="display: inline;"> <a class="pronlink" onclick="javascript:show_sp()" onmouseout="status='';return true;" onmouseover="status='Click to toggle pronunciation';return true;" alt="Toggle for Spelled" title="Click to show spelled">Show Spelled Pronunciation</a> </span> </span><span class="show_spellpr" style="display: inline;"><span class="prondelim">[</span><span class="pron"><span class="boldface">lib</span>-er-tee</span><span class="prondelim">]</span></span></span><br /><br /><strong></strong> <strong>1</strong> <strong>:</strong>the quality or state of being free: <strong>a</strong> <strong>:</strong> the power to do as one pleases <strong>b</strong> <strong>:</strong> freedom from physical restraint <strong>c</strong> <strong>:</strong> freedom from arbitrary or despotic control <strong>d</strong> <strong>:</strong> the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges <strong>e</strong> <strong>:</strong> the power of choice<br /><br /><br />"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." --Declaration of Independence<br /><br /><br />Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are endowed by our Creator. That means that they cannot be taken away.<br /><br />When Stigma is present, Liberty cannot exist.<br /><br />To argue that Stigma is removing Liberty, you must meet the "<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0693_ZS.html">Stigma Plus</a>" rule. More than just mere reputation must be lost with the Stigma. Such as employment or property of some sort.<br /><br />Once you meet that requirement, you have proven that Liberty is lost due to Stigma. At that point, suits under 1983 and the 14th Amendment become applicable.<br /><br />Stigma is created by the lies told. A majority of sex offenders do not recidivate. The numbers that do, float between 3-5% depending on the study. The general public feels that sex offenders are monsters that if given a chance, will do the unthinkable again.<br /><br />The numbers don't lie.<br /><br />Yet Stigma still remains.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-36711928907952826202009-11-01T23:23:00.000-08:002009-11-02T00:30:27.849-08:00Peonage, A form of SlaveryA page from <a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm">LectLaw</a>:<br /><br />"<span style="font-weight: bold;">INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & PEONAGE</span> - a condition of compulsory service or <a id="KonaLink1" target="undefined" class="kLink" style="text-decoration: underline ! important; position: static;" href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm#"><span style="position: static; color: rgb(176, 0, 0);font-family:serif;font-size:16px;" ><span class="kLink" style="position: static; color: rgb(176, 0, 0);font-family:serif;font-size:16px;" >labor</span></span></a> performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.<br /><br />In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the <a id="KonaLink2" target="undefined" class="kLink" style="text-decoration: underline ! important; position: static;" href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm#"><span style="position: static; color: rgb(176, 0, 0);font-family:serif;font-size:16px;" ><span class="kLink" style="position: static; color: rgb(176, 0, 0);font-family:serif;font-size:16px;" >work</span></span></a>. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work.<br /><br />However, it is necessary to prove that the person knowingly and willfully took action, by way of force, threats, intimidation or other form of coercion, causing the victim to reasonably believe that he had no way to avoid continued service, that he was confronted by the existence of a superior and overpowering authority, constantly threatening to the extent that his will was completely subjugated.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001584----000-.html">Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1584</a>, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully hold another person in involuntary servitude.<br /><br />A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">First:</span> That the person held the victim in a condition of 'involuntary servitude';<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Second:</span> That such holding was for a 'term,'; and<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Third:</span> That the person acted knowingly and willfully.<br /><br />It must be shown that a person held to involuntary servitude was so held for a 'term.' It is not necessary, however, that any specific period of time be proved so long as the 'term' of the involuntary service was not wholly insubstantial or insignificant.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001581----000-.html">Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1581(a)</a> is the peonage law cited in the indictment.<br /><br />The specific facts which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the offense of peonage include each and all of the three specific factual elements constituting involuntary servitude as previously stated and explained in these instructions, <span style="font-weight: bold;">plus a fourth specific fact</span>; namely, that the involuntary servitude was compelled by the person in order to satisfy a real or imagined debt regardless of amount. "<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">This was the entire page on Peonage from LectLaw. I copied it here, because to have paraphrased it would have brought an injustice to this work.</span><br /><br /><br />How is peonage important to offenders you might ask? Simple.<br /><br />When an offender is sentenced, they sign their name on the "guilty" line and form a contract with the State. When that sentence is over, the offenders debt to that state is complete. But what happens when the state takes a portion of that "contract" and continually changes it, thus changing the contract.<br /><br />The offender then no longer has the ability to complete the contract, and, is forced to do things not previously agreed upon.<br /><br />Also, if this wasn't disclosed to the offender at the time of signing (the ever changing nature of the contract that is), the contract becomes null and void.<br /><br />Contract Law states:<br /><br /><span class="hw">"</span><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="hw">Full Disclosure</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">n.</span> the need in business transactions to <span style="font-style: italic;">tell the "whole truth" about any matter which the other party should know in deciding to buy or contract</span>. In real estate sales in many states there is a full disclosure form which must be filled out and signed under penalty of perjury for knowingly falsifying or concealing any significant fact."<br /><br />If the Court did not fully disclose the nature of your sentence to you, and all the definitions of each portion of your sentencing, then that contract can be viewed as void. (Contract law would be tough to go into and make it easy to understand. Do a word search for <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-302.html">Unconscionable</a>.)<br /><br />And for those that think that sentencing (plea bargains) are not contracts, please <a href="http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/plea_bargains.html">read this</a>.<br /><br />So, if your contract is now null and void, but you have no recourse, you are now suffering from peonage. Why? Because if you don't conform to the new contract, you will be thrown in jail. Coercion. Did the Legislators "knowingly" make a new law to make things tougher for you?<br /><br />I'll leave that one for you to decide.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-65463988584447813902009-11-01T20:41:00.000-08:002009-11-03T22:32:45.889-08:00Is There "Corruption of Blood" Working in America?"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person." --Article 1, Section 3 US Constitution<br /><br /><p>"In English law, the result of attainder, in that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">attainted</span> person lost all rights to inherit land or other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">hereditaments</span> from an ancestor, to retain possession of such property and to transfer any property rights to anyone, including heirs, by virtue of his or her conviction for <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/treason" class="ilnk" target="_top" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));">treason</a> or a <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/felony" class="ilnk" target="_top" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkTextForCookie(this));">felony</a> punishable by death, <span style="font-weight: bold;">because the law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime</span>.</p> <p>Attainder and the consequent corruption of the blood were abolished by English statutes and are virtually unknown in the United States." --<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/corruption-of-blood">Answers.com</a><br /></p><br />"<span style="font-style: italic;">...Because the Law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime.</span>" This phrase can be used on any convicted Felon. The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that as of 2007, <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/p07ppuspr.htm">one in thirty-one</a> adults are on probation, parole, or in prison.<br /><br />If the Law considers your "blood" tainted because of your crime, then that taint will effect your children and family as well. These people are the "heirs" to whatever potential you may have had. Does this excuse a crime committed? No.<br /><br />Once a sentence has run it's course, the person is supposed to return to full citizen status. Today, stigma is attached to being a Felon. This stigma reduces your ability to find employment, a home, and build a positive life. The stigma (taint) of your crime has now turned you into a "second class citizen."<br /><br />Your family, they will struggle with this for the rest of their lives. Your children will be affected by this through their most impressionable years.<br /><br />Treason used to be the only crime that Corruption of Blood used to be an after effect of. Now, anything classified as a felony will <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">attaint</span> you with Corruption of Blood.<br /><br />This stigma now removes many of the rights you were given under the Constitution of the United States of America. No longer are you allowed to vote, own a gun, or be eligible to serve this country in the Military. All of these rights (or their removal) will effect your family.<br /><br />Collateral Damage is now acceptable in the United States. People say "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." But I would challenge anyone out there to find me someone that knew what the social stigma would be before his sentencing. The true punishment doesn't become apparent until long after your sentence has run it's course.<br /><br />Collateral Damage is a polite way of saying that your family is under Corruption of Blood.<br /><br />Don't like it, then speak up to your legislators.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-71682950145784469022009-07-27T23:32:00.000-07:002009-07-29T01:17:06.560-07:00The Eulogy of The United States of AmericaIn the beginning, The United States of America was a bastion of hope. In her borders, people were given the chance to be free of oppressive governments. Free to believe and worship as their souls dictated.<br /><br />The Founding Fathers wrote up her <a href="http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm">indoctrination articles</a>. In them, they hammered out the ideas, and the concepts that would shape and mold this young Nation into a beacon to the world.<br /><br />Each time they met at a Constitutional Conference, prayer was given. Not to say that the Christian Faith that they held was to be the universal religion, but to show that these men believed in a higher power than themselves.<br /><br />Through this prayer, our <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html">Constitution</a> was born.<br /><br />With this Constitution, our Nation was given life. This life was to offer the people of the world a chance to say "Enough." To this end, we opened our borders to anyone that wanted Freedom. And this freedom was stamped out in our <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html">Bill of Rights</a>. That "All Men were Created Equal!" From these "men," a few were chosen to be our voice. Chosen to speak on our behalf.<br /><br />Congress was called to represent the people. They were to be "of the people, by they people, and for the people." These Congresspeople knew their responsibilities, and took them seriously.<br /><br />Commerce was established. Ideas were brought forth. And shortly after her inception, America was a force to be reckoned with.<br /><br />We accepted other nations as they were, but we showed through our efforts that certain behaviors would not be tolerated. We went to War on numerous occasions.<br /><br />Through our union with our old brethren, we were able to defeat the threat from the East, as well as the threat from Europe. We abhorred the ideals set forth by Germany's leadership. We set out to right the wrongs committed by them.<br /><br />No more would we allow men and women to be denied their "unalienable rights" in this world. The United Nations, using ideals from our nation, drafted <a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/">The Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>.<br /><br />We even stopped the segregation that was happening within our own borders. We opened the minds of our own citizens to stop the hatred. Our people would be free, and equal!<br /><br />Through our struggles to enlighten, we forced ourselves to continue to practice these ideals around the globe. Attempting to bring peace to all nations.<br /><br />America has been a great nation to call home.<br /><br />But, like in all things human; greed, complacency, apathy, and struggles for power ended up corrupting those that were supposed to be "for the people."<br /><br />We quietly allowed our rights to be removed. Our Liberty was given up. The ideal that to remove someones rights was to also remove our own was gone. Still, the greed that consumed those in power continued to grow. The poison was leeching into the very minds of the backbone of our nation.<br /><br />Justice no longer meant what it was spelled out to mean. Now, the more money you had, the more "justice" you received. In the end, her peoples were no longer "innocent until proven guilty," but "guilty until proven innocent."<br /><br />Soon, the people no longer mattered in their opinions. Those in power began to tell the people, through the media, what they would think.<br /><br />In the end, the very safeguards built into the Constitution, were utterly ignored. To the point that men ordained to the highest office were quoted as saying that our Constitution was but a "<a href="http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin051213.htm">G.D. piece of paper!</a>"<br /><br />The ideals, the sacredness of the trust given, and the faith of the people were let down. No longer did a person have to be <a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama_birth_certificate_lawsuits">a natural born citizen</a> to become the Nations President.<br /><br />This President has ushered in a new Nation. This new nation no longer believes in the Republic she once was. This new nation breathes Socialism into her peoples.<br /><br />Dead are the old ways. Dead is the Constitution. <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner%7Ey2009m6d10-When-the-courts-fail-to-uphold-the-Constitution">Dead are the Scales of Justice</a>. The Great Nation known as The United States of America has finally fallen.<br /><br />Fallen because of an attack from within.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-66910754168606709852009-07-13T15:38:00.000-07:002009-07-13T15:39:39.704-07:00Regulatory Laws on Personal Statutes<a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Regulatory+law">Regulatory Laws</a> are known as Administrative Laws.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s071.htm">Statutory Laws</a> are laws established by an act of Legislature.<br /><br />The most interesting form of statutes are those called <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=3_88AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=personal+statutes&source=bl&ots=Tt7vNES6wM&sig=gRt5qczuE3wESZFkBKM-8vm4nM8&hl=en&ei=DJ5bSoTiHIawswOzgeWDCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9">Personal Statutes</a>.<br /><br />A personal statute is something that one is assumed to "carry with him wherever he goes." Being a sex offender creates that personal statute. Sex offenders are told where they can live, who gets to know their personal business, if they can congregate, and if they have any rights. These statutes are all based off of a crime committed.<br /><br />Sex Offender Laws are also considered "regulatory" in <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-729">Smith v. Doe</a>. The argument here was that the statutes were not illegal because they were "regulatory" and not "<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/punitive">punitive</a>." They merely wanted (their intent) to control the sex offenders and not punish them. Punishing them would have been Double Jeopardy. But, regulating their lives wasn't considered to be punishment. If they broke from the statute, then they were brought up on new charges.<br /><br />The punishment only comes from the deviation from the regulation, and not from the regulation itself.<br /><br />But, there is a problem with their thinking. Putting a personal statute on someone based on their criminal history creates a <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html">Bill of Pains and Penalties</a>. Not only that, but the Supreme Court <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=97&invol=381">ruled</a> that "...the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal."<br /><br />Creating a "regulatory" statute that has a punitive effect (even if the intent is to merely regulate) based off of a crime committed is wholly unconstitutional. Creating a regulation of a "personal statute" nature creates a "cruel and unusual" punishment aspect, as well as violating Double Jeopardy issues.<br /><br />Sex Offender Laws, whether seen as Regulatory or Punitive, are still Unconstitutional.<br /><br />And there are other Registries being made every day off of the success of the Sex Offender Registry.Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-46976635838786726722009-05-26T12:21:00.000-07:002009-05-26T12:39:44.103-07:00Time Served. Or Is It?<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><size=18pt>Time Served. Or Is It?</size=18pt></span><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Recently, I was reading an article titled "<a href="http://dianedimond.net/paying-a-debt-to-society-then-what/">Paying a Debt to Society - Then What?</a>" and couldn't help but wonder about the difference between Michael Vick and a sex offender.<br /><br />Vick was convicted of a crime that touches peoples hearts and minds. So do sex offenses.<br /><br />Michael Vick was making upwards of 100 million dollars a year. Now, he's pushed into bankruptcy, and making $10 an hour.<br /><br />But, because he has undeniable talent at the game of football, people are talking about rethinking his ban. They might let him play again.<br /><br />They (the people) are using the philosophy of "If you server your time and pay your debt to society, then you can rejoin us."<br /><br />But, that philosophy is only used at select times.<br /><br />What about the talents of the people that have paid their debt to society, served their time, but can no longer be let back into what they were doing.<br /><br />Here are two people whom prove my point (names have been changed):<br /><br />Joe was an IT Tech for about 20 years. He was making over $100,000 a year. He moves to another state, and is forced to register in the public's eye for a crime he had committed back in 1989. Now, he can't pay his bills, and is in forclosure. He can't get ANY job that utilizes his skill sets.<br /><br />Jim was a highly successful businessman. He had 2 entire floors in a highrise in downtown for his financial services company. After his ordeal was made public, he had to give up both floors, and fire his entire staff. He went from ungodly amount of money each year to making barely enough to live off of.<br /><br />But, these two men will not be given the same courtesy that Michael Vick was.<br /><br />The question is, "If a person serves their time, pays their debts, and live a good life, WHEN is enough enough?"<br /><br /><br /></div></div>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-41001397376638013402009-03-13T04:44:00.000-07:002009-11-02T00:26:39.098-08:00Video of the March 10th 2009 AWA Committee Meeting<pre style="margin-top: 0pt; display: inline;"><object data="http://www.rightsandlaw.net/plugins/content/jw_allvideos/players/mediaplayer_4.0.46.swf" style="height: 300px; width: 400px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="movie" value="http://www.rightsandlaw.net/plugins/content/jw_allvideos/players/mediaplayer_4.0.46.swf">The previous video has moved to a new location.<br />Click the link below to watch it from the House of<br />Representatives Judiciary Committee site.<br /><br /><a href="http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real/judiciary/crime/crime031009.smi">http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real/judiciary/crime/crime031009.smi</a><br /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><br /><param name="flashvars" value="file=http://www.rightsandlaw.net/images/stories/videos//sorna1.flv&image=http://www.rightsandlaw.net/images/stories/videos//sorna1.jpg&autostart=false&fullscreen=true"><br /></object></pre>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-1374292983277086752009-03-02T21:32:00.000-08:002009-03-02T22:16:11.404-08:00As An Offender<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I found this while going through my old files. I'm not sure who the author is, but I felt it worth of a post...</span><br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size:180%;">As An Offender<br /></span><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br />My crime, though not a child rapist/murderer, has landed me on the Sex Offender Registry. Throughout the process of my court trials, I attempted to maintain my integrity and the other views instilled in me as a child. Never once did I deny my crime. Never once did I shirk my responsibility to my victim.<br /><br />Treatment was ordered, as well as a few other things. In my treatment, I learned about something called the "Abuse Cycle." It taught me to recognize what situations and feelings "triggered" me into my cycle. It also taught me the different stages of the cycle. As I gained a greater understanding of myself, I was soon taught about a Relapse Prevention Plan. This teaches you how to use a support network to keep yourself out of those situations that raise your risk to reoffend.<br /><br />After gaining a strong understanding of that and a good time worth of demonstrating it, my treatment provider felt I was ready to venture back into society.<br /><br />Boy what a rude awakening I had coming to me. The skills that I had learned as a young man prior to my incarceration were no longer good enough to get me a job.<br /><br />My real barrier: The Sex Offender Registry. No one wanted to hire me. Finally, I found some jobs that were under the table. I was able to scrape up enough money get get a small hole in the wall apartment. I was also able to find a cheap car that I could drive around in. But that life that seemed to come so easy to others, was far beyond my grasp.<br /><br />Eventually, people started to find out who I was as the Registry Laws changed. Even though my conviction was prior to these new laws, they were deemed "regulatory" and therefore acceptable by the Courts.<br /><br />As more and more people saw my face on the Registry, my ability to find work stopped all together. I was kicked out of the apartment I had been living in trouble free for 4 years. Threats were made against me as I held my head down while walking the streets. I even had someone come across the street and threaten to hit me with a large stick as I was walking from a job interview. And using my relapse prevention plan was getting harder to do as my support network was drying up.<br /><br />After a while, I discovered what was wrong with this picture.<br /><br />I learned that there was an acceptable amount of harassment proscribed to me by the general public.<br /><br />Knowing my responsibility for my crime, and the responsibility to my victim to never attempted to diminish my guilt for my crime.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">So I learned to:<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Duck my head when confronted</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Walk on the other side of the street (no matter which side that had to be)</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Learn to keep myself from any situation that I might be accused of something</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Stay to myself</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Take the harassment and abuse of those who didn't know my crime</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />But, what I also realized was what I had not given up when I was sentenced:<br /><br /></span><ul><li>The right to live</li><li>The right to breathe</li><li>The right to warmth</li><li>The right to see</li><li>The right to think</li><li>The right to question</li><li>The right to be around friends</li><li>The right to believe in God</li><li>The right to property</li><li>The right to defend my home</li><li>The right to be heard in Court</li><li>The right to be Innocent until proven Guilty</li><li>The right to seek forgiveness</li></ul><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">I learned that in our Constitution, All Men were Created Equal. If you committed a crime, even a heinous one like a sex offense, you were still free when your sentence was up. I learned of a word called Liberty.<br /><br />Liberty taught me to hold my head up as I walked down the street. Liberty taught me to look people in the eyes. Liberty taught me that I am not an animal!<br /><br />As I write my thoughts down, I humbly pray that anyone who may read this later, will think. Sex Offenders, albeit the "scum of the Earth" in the eyes of the public, still have rights within the Constitution.<br /><br />The Courts may try to take that away, but everything comes full circle. One day, people will see that the laws are becoming increasingly more "punitive." One day, someone will stand up and make a difference. I hope I'm around to see that day.<br /><br />I hope I don't end up like some of the offenders on the Registry, dead!<br /><br />May God speed this to those that can use it for good. May God have mercy on my Soul.<br /><br />Amen.<br /></span></div></div>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-37955083900385625432009-01-22T15:27:00.001-08:002009-01-23T00:43:43.643-08:00Recreating Segregation<div style="text-align: center;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">We hold these truths to be self-evident...</span>"<br /></div><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self%20evident"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Self Evident:</span></a> evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">...that all men are created equal...</span>"<br /></div><br />All men: regardless of origin, faith, political alignment, age, race, sex, sexual preference, and even regardless of past crimes.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...</span>"<br /></div><br />God (I'm sorry if you don't believe in Him, but I do) gave us these rights, not man, nor a government created by man.<br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unalienable"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Unalienable:</span></a> not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.</span>"<br /></div><br />Life and Happiness are somewhat obvious, so I won't take the time to spell them out. But Liberty on the other hand, now that is a subject that few people truly understand. If you care to read about some of the ideas behind Liberty, read <a href="http://thelibertyinterest.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-it-constitutional.html">this</a>, and <a href="http://triedbyconscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/security-versus-liberty-eternal.html">this</a>.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...</span>"<br /><br />"<span style="font-style: italic;">Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.</span>"<br /></div><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despotism"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Despotism:</span></a><br /><br /><table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td style="font-weight: bold;" class="dnindex">1.</td> <td>the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td style="font-weight: bold;" class="dnindex">2.</td> <td>absolute power or control; tyranny.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td style="font-weight: bold;" class="dnindex">3.</td> <td>an absolute or autocratic government.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table style="width: 224px; height: 24px;" class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td style="font-weight: bold;" class="dnindex">4.</td> <td>a country ruled by a despot.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />When a government, under the guise of protecting it's citizens, actively removes and abolishes the rights of others, it creates a scenario similar to that of when the pilgrims left England. That little shift in peoples perception of government led to the creation of the United States of America. The quotes from above are taken directly from the text of the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm">Declaration of Independence</a>.<br /><br />In today's society, we are still recovering from the Civil Rights movements, Woman's Rights movement, and more recently, Gay and Lesbian Rights movements. What people forget, or sometimes were not aware of, is that when the government loses control over a previously subdued and segregated entity, they go and find another one to pick on.<br /><br />Having a common enemy gives the government purpose. It helps the general public feel justified in giving the government it's money. Without a common enemy, the people would cease to bend to the wishes of the government.<br /><br />The latest common enemy is criminals. And much more specifically, sex offenders. (I would like to clarify that I am not supporting the behavior of any sex offender, or the abolition of the sex offender laws by any means) Sex offenders have become the latest and greatest common enemy the government has seen.<br /><br />Sex Offender legislation is reaching a fervor the likes of which I doubt this country has ever seen. Every single legislative season is crammed with S.O. bills. Bills that restrict how far an offender can live from another offender, or bills that put large bold type on a S.O.'s drivers license, or legislative bills that uniformly categorize and offender regardless of when it happened or the details, and lets not forget about legislative bills that speak of offenders getting their rights back and allowing them to become contributing members of society, except for S.O.'s.<br /><br />Everyone loves to hate sex offenders. But, they are still human. In spite of what the government tries to preach about them being sub-human and worthless. Sex offenders have Civil Rights too. They were created equal, and they also have the same unalienable rights as those that never committed a crime.<br /><br />Unfortunately, sex offenders are considered to be so sub-human, that even after they have served their time in jail, completed their treatment, and payed their debt to society, they continuously get shoved farther and farther down the ladder of society.<br /><br />So far as to almost rival that of the slaves back in the 1800's. How could I possible say that you ask? Let me explain.<br /><br />"Slavery", as defined by the <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/slavery.pdf">Slavery Convention of 1926</a>, is (1)the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status, (2) the slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery; all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him; all acts of disposal by sale or exchange of a slave acquired with a view to being sold or exchanged, and, in general, every act of trade or transport in slaves.<br /><br />The government uses the "right of ownership" (via the DOC) to tell an offender where he can live, with whom he can live, how close he can live to another offender, how close that offender can live to a daycare, nursing home, park, school, bus stop, etc.<br /><br />And good ol' Uncle Sam uses that "ownership" to come up with new ways to further suppress sex offenders every year.<br /><br />Sex Offenders are being segregated out of society, for life! And all under the guise of "Regulatory". But, Liberty being an unalienable right, creates a Constitutionality issue with Uncle Sam's ideas of late.<br /><br />I believe it was the <a href="http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment13/index.html">thirteenth amendment</a> that abolished slavery. And, I believe that there is a law about segregation as well.<br /><br />In the thirteenth amendment, it talks about "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". When a criminal is "convicted", there is a sentence attached. If you continuously add to that sentence, you are going outside of the courts to attach punishment for a crime that is already ruled on. That creates another issue that we'll have to discuss at another time.<br /><br />Here is a quote from a man I've quoted many times before:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case.<br />- Thomas Paine.</span>"<br /></div><br />Criminals lose their right to vote, and according to law, they get it back when their time is served. Except for Sex Offenders.<br /><br />When will this country learn that segregation will only lead to hardship? Not only for the person being segregated, but also by the very government itself when it has to fight it out in court at a later time.<br /><br />Segregation will ultimately lead to the destruction of this country as we know it. The very methods that help to create these laws will be used to separate and compartmentalize the very citizens that it's supposed to protect.<br /><br />Few people realise that 93% of all sex offenders were known (either relatives, or close friend of the family) to the victim.<br /><br />What if that was your son, your daughter, your wife, or your husband? Would you be able to watch them get treated like that? Would you feel that the system was just then?<br /><br />Or would you come back and reread this post looking for ideas to fight it?Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-58288024258843358882009-01-03T18:18:00.000-08:002009-01-03T21:05:23.321-08:00Stare Decisis's Role in Today's Political Climate<meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.4 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm">STARE DECISIS</a></b> is <i>"to stand by that which is decided." The principle that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.</i>
<br />
<br />The concept of Stare Decisis is fairly simple. If you have a defined set of laws, and a court ruling tries to define one of those laws to a more finite level, it sets a precedence outside of the original definition of the Law. It is easily understood if you check out <a href="http://www.constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm">these diagrams</a>, and can visually see the progression that takes place.
<br />
<br />When you understand how Stare Decisis can pervert the Judicial system, one then asks the question of how to fix it? The only way to truly set things “right” would be to find one of the more controversial laws from the past that helped to create a precedence setting ruling, and fight it on a Due Process and Stare Decisis basis.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The other question that can be asked is “How did this happen?” The answer to that question lies in the people elected to office that set these laws up. In my article “<a href="http://offenderrights.blogspot.com/2008/10/adjournment-sine-die.html">Adjournment Sine Die</a>” I discuss this briefly. Not to mention that when Congress passes 10's upon thousands of new Legislation every year, The Supreme Court can't keep up with the caseload of deciding Constitutionality. So, until someone comes alone to challenge it, Congress gets to pass it as law. And, if no one challenges it, it sets precedence for the creation of new laws that are even more erroneous. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This has come about most strongly in the 20<sup>th</sup> century. There has been a major push to create precedence for setting the Government up as the ONLY ruling body in the country. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This of course goes against everything the Constitution was created for. It is “For the people, by the people” and through the people that this Government is given it's power. The Constitution, and even the Federalist Papers talk about the power being the peoples and not the Government. There is even mention that the Government is null and void if the citizens rights are ever taken away. <a href="http://offenderrights.blogspot.com/2008/12/give-me-liberty.html">This too was discussed previously</a>.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So, I ask: if our Rights are continuously being removed, if <a href="http://offenderrights.blogspot.com/2008/11/series-on-loss-of-rights-due-process.html">Congress is continuously creating legislation</a> that is outside of it's authority, if the Judicial branch isn't ruling against these injustices, how are we supposed to set things right? How do we as citizens get the Government to pay attention to our wishes?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The only way left to us. We stand up and tell them that no longer are we going to sit idly by. No longer are we going to take the abuse. Each of us needs to educate our neighbor. We need the people to cry out long and hard. And only then will the Government listen. Only then can we effect the “change” that we have been asking for for so many years now.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Ask your Congress person to stick to the Constitution. Ask them to stop the insanity that plagues our Political Climate. Ask them to stop the use of Stare Decisis. Ask them to uphold the Constitution that they are sworn to protect.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">How much longer must we suffer these injustices before we stand up and fight? How much longer do we have before we no longer have a way to turn it around? How much longer are you willing to wait?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></p> Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-19011919218785231382009-01-03T12:10:00.000-08:002009-01-03T21:06:06.639-08:00Guilty Until Proven Innocent<div>In the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered to be the one of the most important aspects of the Constitution. That was the notion that every man was considered to be "Innocent until proven Guilty" by a Court of Law.</div><br /><div> </div>Through a series of small changes over the years, it feels more like we have become a Nation of "Guilty until proven Innocent" by a Court of Law. And that is only if you make it to the trial.<br /><div><br />The general consensus by the Law Enforcement seems to have swung to "Everyone is suspicious and therefore guilty of some crime. It's my job to find out what it is." No longer are they trying to "protect" society, but are trying to find out what society did to break the law. And with "<a href="http://blog.aclu.org/2008/12/12/one-in-every-31-adults/">One in Every Thirty-One Adults</a>", that makes for a lot of citizens in trouble with the law.<br /><br />The Justice system is focused more of a political career and less on upholding the law. More and more "plea bargains" are being used to get the cases out of Court and create a "win-win" for the prosecutor and the defense attorney. (I doubt that many people realise that a plea deal is counted as a win for both parties.) And with more and more people "pleading" out, less and less are our rights being protected by the Court systems. This loss of defense of the Constitution is leading to the idea that citizens are guilty and therefore, it's only a matter of time before they get caught.<br /><br />Anymore, the idea of being a free citizen, and being innocent until proven guilty is becoming a fallacy.<br /><br />Where is our Due Process? Where is our Freedom from Persecution? Where is our Right to a Speedy Trial (oh, I forgot, that's given away with your "plea deal")? How can the Judicial system claim to uphold the Law when they are actively perverting it? How can our Legislature continue to create legislation that continually removes our rights and separates the classes? How can our Law Enforcement enforce the Law if they themselves are not held to the same if not higher standard?<br /><br />What happened to "All Men were created equal"?<br /><br /><br /></div>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-35919302890662914082009-01-03T12:05:00.000-08:002009-01-03T21:07:09.826-08:00The American Way<div>From the beginning of this country we call home, America has been a place of Justice. We have always stood for the underdog in any battle. We love to see right prevail over wrong. We have grown into a people that want to help others overcome their own tragedies.</div><br /><div> </div>But few realise anymore that this very country that we call home is going through it's own tragedies. Few pay attention to the fact that the <a href="http://triedbyconscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-is-constitution-to-me.html">Constitution</a> is becoming less and less prevalent in our Government. It seems that only those few realise the danger that we face.<br /><div> </div><br /><div>Our Government was meant to be a small and relatively quiet entity. The Federal Government was to manage the collection of States. The States were to uphold the Laws that the citizens agreed upon. "We the People" are the main governing body as set up by the very Constitution that the Government is sworn to uphold. But, since about the turn of the twentieth century, our government has created precedence out of thin air to allow itself to build upon that and grow. Now, the Federal Government is the all-powerful entity and the States are at it's mercy. No longer are the Feds being owned and operated by "citizens" but by the friends of big business and socialism. </div><br /><div> </div>The ironic and sad part is that the American people have been programed into believing that they need this big government to hold their hand and watch over them. They have forgotten that it is<em> only</em> through them that the government even draws it's power. They have forgotten that it is them that appoint their Representatives to the Congress and also the White House. Few remember what it means to be able to vote.<br /><div> </div><br /><div>The American Way is slowly dying. As if it were an ancient relic put on display. </div><br /><div> </div>This injustice that we as Americans are living through demands that we stand up and say "Enough!" Our tax dollars are frivolously spent on trivial items. We are off fighting a war that few know the reason for anymore. Our government is constantly stealing from us. Both our Rights, and our monies. The numbers of the poor are growing. And with this economic recession at hand, it's about to explode those numbers.<br /><div> </div><br /><div>Where is this American Spirit? Where are those that see the injustice? Does it not curdle your stomach? Does your fighting spirit speak to you of the corruption that is crippling our society? Who is going to fight for our freedoms? Who is going to fight for those that can't fight for themselves? Who is going to stand up and be the one? Or one of many? </div><br /><div> </div>It is not the American Way to stand idly by as our fellow Americans are led to the slaughterhouse. Be American, stand up and fight!<br /><div> </div><br /><div> </div>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-683288282888852492008-12-26T10:06:00.000-08:002008-12-26T11:15:53.763-08:00Give Me Liberty...I was reminded of the Quote that Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" And began to ponder on what exactly is Liberty.<br /><br />Now, such a word obviously has multiple interpretations, not to mention how many things have the word liberty in their title.<br /><br /><p>What I found was <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Liberty">this</a>: Liberty is the </p><ul><br /><li>Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control </li><br /><li>Freedom from external or foreign rule; independence</li><br /><li>Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc.; according to choice</li><br /><li>Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint.<br /></li></ul><p>I also looked at our family dictionary (Websters circa 1968) and it states: Freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, <em>or any other form of arbitrary control</em>.</p><p>So, back to Patrick Henry's quote. One can assume that he was referring to freedom from oppression by the English Monarchy. But, it begs the question, "How does the unalienable, God given right to Liberty apply to today's political climate?"</p><p>With "Big Brother" looking over our shoulders at all times, how is Liberty maintained? Our Government has been set up to monitor our lives down to the littlest details. We can't drive down the street without a policeman running our plates to see if they have a reason to pull us over. We can't say "One Nation, Under God..." in the pledge of allegiance because it might offend a minority. How is that protecting the Liberty of those that <em>want</em> to say "Under God"?</p><p>Liberty is an all encompassing thought that governs our daily life. Without Liberty, we are no longer America, land of the Free. The Bill of Rights is a list that attempts to define some of our Liberties that cannot be taken away. The Founders did not attempt to write all of our unalienable Liberties down because the felt that it was understood by all at the time what was meant. Now, learned men attempt to twist and corrupt the meaning of those few articles of Liberties prescribed by our Founding Fathers into a way to manipulate and control the people.</p><p>Liberty is something that can only be taken away if you commit a <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Capital+crime">capitol crime</a>. Otherwise, we all have the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights found therein. Liberty is what this great country was founded upon. Liberty is what our Founding Fathers fought for. Liberty is what our ancestors died for. Liberty is what we are losing in today's political climate.</p><p>Do you feel that the government is acting in accordance with the basic Liberties of the very citizens it's sworn to protect? Are our politicians fighting for out Civil Liberties in Congress? If Liberty is unalienable, how are we as citizens protecting it from the government?</p><p>I'm reminded of a quote a friend uses "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees!"</p><p>"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"</p><br /><p></p>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-86917436347403740072008-12-21T08:16:00.000-08:002008-12-21T10:14:23.271-08:00The Cost of the Loss of RightsRecently I read an article on the ACLU site that talked about <a href="http://blog.aclu.org/2008/12/12/one-in-every-31-adults/">One in Every Thirty-One Adults</a> having a criminal record. They quoted the <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/p07ppuspr.htm">report</a> from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) which, to give you the gist, states that numbers are up for people on parole/probation.<br /><br />I bring this to your attention to illustrate a simple idea that occurred to me. If you took the 7.8 million offenders that the report talks about, and gave them the ability to be productive members to society, what would the influx of tax monies entail? Think on it this way; if you took each offender and multiplied it by an imaginary number of $10,000 (roughly the taxes to be paid by someone making $50,000), what would you get? Roughly 78 BILLION dollars. Now, if we had received the taxes on theses people in this amount for the last 10 years, would we have needed a Federal Bailout?<br /><br />But, with the criminal record and the loss of rights that each offender has received as part of their sentencing, they lose the ability to become productive members to society.<br /><br />Now, some offenders are unable to control themselves and recidivate. Those will be perpetually in the system. But, those offenders who learned their lesson, and have tried to return to society to gain employment have found it difficult to get jobs because of their record and our publics perception.<br /><br />Recently I learned of a <a href="http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/fd/5a.pdf">program</a> that helps offenders get back on their feet. In the manual for that program, I learned that persons with Criminal Records and are on welfare, make up 46% of the welfare population. This program is designed to help overcome the "barriers" these offenders have in getting employment and getting off of welfare.<br /><br />If the public perception wasn't so strong against those that have criminal records, they might have an easier time at getting work. Then, they would be able to contribute to society. And a lot of them would make more than $50,000 in a year. Some would make upwards of six figures.<br /><br />So, with such a sizeable chunk of our population unable to gain meaningful employment, and unable to pay their potential in tax revenue, our Country is continually losing out on some serious revenue potential.<br /><br />Do you think that offenders who have learned their lesson and are trying to reintegrate with society should be segregated from the other potential candidates for employment? If an ex-offender has the potential to contribute to society more than they currently are, shouldn't the door be opened for them? If 1 in 31 has a criminal record, and has lost their rights, wouldn't voting on new laws be skewed from their true potential?<br /><br />Is ostracism effective?Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-47592527520723691902008-12-11T15:56:00.000-08:002008-12-11T20:18:43.286-08:00Complacency: The Freedom Killer (Part 3)<div align="center"><strong><em></em></strong></div><br /><div align="center"><strong><em>"The greatest obstacle to those who hope to reform American education is complacency."</em></strong></div><br /><div align="center"><strong><em>---Diane Ravitch</em></strong></div><br /><div align="left"><strong><em></em></strong></div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">Complacency has the ability to lull us into thinking that everything is OK. It provides a sense of false security. A security which, if unchecked, has the potential to rob us of our very foundation as a country.</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">In our effort to understand this vicious and quiet disease that is plaguing America, we have learned that not only does it teach us ignorance as Citizens, but that we also can potentially lose our ability to fight back.</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">In this final segment, we are going to discuss how the loss of our ability to fight back and our ignorance leads to us losing our Rights.</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">There is another quote that I've been meaning to share:</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="center"><strong><em>"You need to have a redesign because familiarity breeds a kind of complacency."</em></strong></div><br /><div align="center"><strong><em>---Timothy White</em></strong></div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">In the "Civil Rights" Movement, we all became accustomed to hearing about Civil Rights. Some, even to the point of rolling their eyes. We all became "familiar" with the concept. Now, we are complacent to the idea of reformation in the area of Civil Rights.</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">The familiarity is where the ignorance comes from. In our familiarity, we stop caring enough to pay attention. While we are not paying attention, we quietly and slowly lose our ability to fight back. Laws are passed and judgements are made in Court that slowly and silently remove our ability to say "No!"</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">The intent of the article is to bring to attention the dangers of allowing ourselves to become complacent with anything in our lives, let alone becoming complacent with our Civil Rights.</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">Do your research, study up on what's going on around you. Become active. It's the only way for things to turn around. I cannot remember where I heard it before, but it's been said that "The only way for Evil to win is for enough good people to do nothing."</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">Don't be one of those that stood by and did nothing only to kick yourself later in life for failure to act. Complacency is (in my opinion) the leading cause of the failure in our Legislative Branch to create new and better laws. We see many many laws being passed that waste money, create hardships for citizens, and set precedence for future equally absurd laws.</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">Are you willing to continue to let this happen? Are you willing to stand up for no one else but yourself? Does the direction of the country worry you? Do you feel that things are being handled the way you think they should? Do you realise that a phone call to your local Senator makes a HUGE difference? </div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">Complacency creates danger in all of our lives.</div><br /><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left"></div>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-48457743061954593112008-12-07T09:18:00.000-08:002008-12-07T11:14:57.513-08:00Complacency: The Freedom Killer (Part 2)<div align="center"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><em>"I hate to see complacency prevail in our lives when it's so directly contrary to the teaching of Christ." </em></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><em></em></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><em>---Jimmy Carter</em></strong></div><p><br /><br />The United States of America was founded on the principles of Christianity. Some may not be Christians or even believe in God. But the truth is, all men were created equal. In that equality, we all have a certain set of "inalienable" or "natural" rights. These "natural" rights come directly from God.<br /><br />These natural rights have never been put into a complete list. Simply because it was presumed at the time of the Constitution that people knew what these rights were. For the sake of trying to prevent the Government they were trying to establish, the founding fathers put a few on paper.<br /><br />This is known as the Bill of Rights.<br /><br />The first 10 listed in the Bill of Rights are a pretty straight forward and simple list. What many people may not know, is that there is a bigger list of substantive rights. These substantive rights are the extension of the basic rights listed. For example, Freedom of Speech gives us the right to say what we want, when we want it. What people may not realise is that they also, under freedom of speech, have the right to: freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition. All of the minute and infinite rights that are protected under those are considered to be substantive.</p><p>These substantive rights are vitally important to the continued success of the American people and the "dream" that is America. For example, imagine the loss of the right to petition. We would no longer have the right to gather signatures for important matters. This would effectively stop the citizens from helping to create legislation. Imagine the havoc that would create and the doors it would open for the Government to bring in a different style of government.</p><p>So, in understanding that we have a need to fight for our rights and to protect them. Even if it means that a law that "feels good" or looks good on paper needs to not be passed, it's the greater good of protecting our rights that is more important.</p><p>Complacency breeds a need for bigger government, more "security", and allows us to turn on our fellow men.</p><p>Complacency by the people will be the downfall of this great nation.</p><p>Do not let complacency rule your life. Can you imagine what will happen if you keep on with the same things you are doing? Can you imagine what will happen if you don't stand up for your rights?</p><p>It reminds me of a poem I know of:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p align="center">When the Nazis came for the communists,</p><p align="center">I remained silent;I was not a communist.</p><p align="center"><br />When they locked up the social democrats,</p><p align="center">I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.</p><p align="center"><br />When they came for the trade unionists,</p><p align="center">I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.</p><p align="center"><br />When they came for the Jews,</p><p align="center">I remained silent;I was not a Jew.</p><p align="center"><br />When they came for me,</p><p align="center">there was no one left to speak out...</p><p align="center"></p><p align="center"></p><p align="center"></p><p align="center"></p><p align="center"></p><p align="left">Are you going to allow this to happen to you?</p><p align="left"></p><p align="left"><br /></p>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-2325895792841003342008-12-03T20:23:00.000-08:002008-12-07T11:24:48.463-08:00Complacency: The Freedom Killer (Part1)<div align="center"><em><strong></strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="center"><em><strong>"I have absolutely no idea what my generation did to enrich our democracy. We dropped the ball. We entered a period of complacency and closed our eyes to the public corruption of our democracy."</strong></em></div><br /><div align="center"><em><strong>---Wynton Marsalis</strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="left">Many an author has written about the disgraceful state of mind called Complacency. Few have managed to stir people to action. We all aspire to create a burning need in the hearts of Man to get up and do something to change their world.</div><div align="left"></div><br /><p>The more I read on personal development, the more that I learn that change always, and only, begins inside of one's self. Leo Tolstoy says "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." </p><p>To understand complacency, we need to only examine the pace of our lives. Most people spend their time pretty much the same way. Few people actually strive to grow as individuals. Most are too busy trying to stay afloat in life to move forward personally. That, believe it or not, is stagnation. Also known as Complacency. They are complacent with their lives, how they live their lives, their surroundings, and where they are headed overall. The problem with that is that if one only thinks about today and how you are doing, you'll never see the speed bumps of tomorrow. </p><p>Complacency programs our brains into accepting that the dreams and goals that we sought after while we were children are unreachable. Or that we lack the power within ourselves to change and become the person that we always dreamed of.</p><p>How does complacency affect you? Think of it this way. If the Constitution is slowly and quietly being taken out of our country, and you are OK with how things are today, you'll never recognize the danger that lurks around the corner as our liberties are slowly eaten up. </p><p>As our liberties are taken away, you might think "It's not that bad" or "It sucks to be that guy" when you see him affected by the loss of liberty. But what you fail to realise is that as one right is effectively taken away, it sets us up to lose more. </p><p>"The only way for Evil to prevail is for enough Good people to do nothing" is a quote that I've heard many times. The more we think that this won't happen to us, or that it's the other guys problem and not mine, we lose our ability to stand up and say "That's not right!"</p><p>If we stay complacent, and do nothing, then nothing changes. Have you ever heard the saying "Nothing changes if nothing changes"? If you don't change, then the way the world is headed will not change.</p><p>Complacency will kill our ability to fight for our Freedom's granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. There is a sentence I recently found in the book called The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People that I'd like to share with you. It's found on page 60 and 61, "Each of us guards a gate of change that can only be opened from the inside. We cannot open the gate of another, either by argument or by emotional appeal."</p><p>So I humbly ask, Open your Gate. Let the change begin in your heart. In John C. Maxwell's book Thinking For a Change, he has a quote in there that states, "A belief is not just an idea that you possess; it is an idea that possesses you." Believe that you can make a change in your own life. Believe that you have the voice to stand up and be heard. Believe that through small changes in ourselves, big changes in our world can happen.</p><p>Fight for your Freedoms before they are all gone. Don't let the hubbub of life keep you stuck in the "rut". Stand up and be heard. Take complacency out of your life and replace it with belief and purpose.</p><br /><br /><p></p>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-58057764710000111182008-11-28T09:43:00.000-08:002008-11-28T10:34:12.711-08:00A Series on the Loss of Rights: Due Process<strong>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process">Due process</a></strong> (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land, instead of respecting merely some or most of those legal rights. In the laws of the United States (U.S.), this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations thereof by governments. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions."<br /><br />There are two kinds of "Due Process", Procedural and Substantive. Procedural is the process by which things are done. Due process by procedures. Substantive on the other hand, are the rights given by the Constitution that are byproducts of the Bill of Rights.<br /><br />Most everything you read these days is geared towards protecting your established rights. What you don't read about is the establishing of those rights.<br /><br />Congress in it's near limitless power in creating a new law, often takes it upon themselves to use a House Rule to pass laws and not follow the Constitutional processes.<br /><br />For example, the Senate is to have a Quorum when creating major legislation. In the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm">definition of a Quorum</a>, the Senate "presumes" that a Quorum is present unless someone calls for a roll call. Basically meaning that 1, 2, 5, or so people could be present to pass legislation. And unless one of those people is dumb enough to ask for a roll call vote, they can pass any legislation they want to. Couple that with <a href="http://offenderrights.blogspot.com/2008/10/adjournment-sine-die.html">Adjournment Sine Die</a>, you get a Congress that does what it wants, when it wants, without the benefit of checks and balances.<br /><br />Congress is <em>supposed</em> to have a quorum present (51%) when creating or passing major pieces of legislation. Congress is supposed to close it's doors at the end of their season. The Senate <em>IS NOT</em> to create legislation, they are to be the "cooling plate" for the House of Representatives.<br /><br />So here's the question of the day. If Congress uses the House Rules to pass major legislation, are they following Procedural Due Process in the creation of laws? If they are not, are those laws considered to be Constitutional? Should they be "re-argued" with a true Quorum present? Are they completing their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in the creation of these laws? Are our rights as citizens under the Constitution being protected when they create laws this way?Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1796625326999594447.post-64700135889359457062008-11-22T17:49:00.000-08:002008-11-28T10:35:23.017-08:00A Nation Trained to Fear.<em><span style="color:#ff0000;">I found this on another site and found it to be appropriate for here...</span></em><br /><br /><strong>COMMENTS WELCOME</strong><br /><br /><strong><a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1125866/a_nation_trained_to_fear.html?cat=9">A Nation Trained to Fear</a></strong><br />By kiokwus, published Oct 19, 2008<br /><br />Rating: 4.0 of 5<br /><br /><br /><br />Sex Offender. A term that causes the hair on "decent" people to stand on end, bring out the cold sweat of uncontrollable loathing enough to make a person sick with revulsion. A term used by politicians to justify submission of proposals, totally opposite what this country was based upon, to further degrade, chastise, regulate, demoralise, restrain, those labeled sex offenders to a life of abject poverty as well as hopelessness beyond measure.<br /><br />What constitutes a sex offender? Is it the 5 year old boy who while giving his teacher a hug, moves his face back and forth between her breasts? The 8 year old's "comparing themselves" to each other? The 12 and 13 year old boy/girl friend that are both charged against each other as both being victim and offender when the girl became pregnant? Or the high school teen lovers that are a few years apart and the boy turns 18? What about the girl who takes pictures of herself and sends it to her boyfriend and friends? Or the boys "slapping the rears" of girls while running down the hallway in school? (Girls did the same) How about the people forced to urinate in the bushes after the local DA locked the public rest rooms, to pounce on these unfortunates and charge them with indecent exposure? Or the old man chasing after young girls?<br /><br />In our world today, they all are labeled as sex offenders.<br /><br />From the young 5 year old to the old grandfather, a label of sex offender sticks upon them forever. It matters nothing of when the offense took place, the circumstances, how long they "must" register, nothing removes this stigma from their lives. Contrary to when the officials tell you, this stigma affects not only the individual, but every person associated with this person. Entire families are subjected to the painful applications deemed appropriate for the offense committed. The justification? To save the children of course.<br /><br />There are those who firmly believe that anyone labeled a sex offender, deserves the most horrendous punishment that can be handed down by the courts of law. Stipulations are given, requirements must be fulfilled, restrictions are put in place, rules are to be followed, demands are to be kept, and changes come without notice that extends all of these so there really is no end in sight. The public believes that anything is justified, for the sex offender "destroyed" the life of the victim. When then does punishment end and forgiveness begin? Not all "victims" feel there should be unending punishment.<br /><br />In many cases, the victim is a family member and over time, the family has worked diligently to be reunited. Once reunited, the family should be able to live life once again without constant harassment's and stipulations. But this is not to be so. Now the horror placed upon the stigma of sex offender, affects all the members of the family including the "victim". What is demanded of the offender, is now demanded of the victim and family. Housing restrictions do not mean just the offender. It also includes the family. The option of the offender again leaving the family unit is undesirable as all the work to reunite to family is for naught.<br /><br />Many communities have passed laws or ordinances that stipulate just that. Additionally, many children services across the nation now feel they have the right to demand the offender leave, regardless of what the courts and counselors approved. Not doing so may cause the children to be removed from the family unit, the spouse to be charged with child endangerment or a host of other crimes, and the offender ousted into the cold once again.<br /><br />Many states, in the frenzy of finding anyone who ever had a sex offense, has created laws governing the application, retroactive to 50 or 60 years before or longer. Those who have been caught up in this roundup, may have never done another crime, yet now their lives are to be destroyed as if the offense took place yesterday. The impact of such not only destroys everything this person has ever done in his or her life, causes the community to now fear this person and react according to this fear. Horror enters the persons life, fear that someone will take matters into their own hands becomes a daily fear. What had been punished and satisfied from many years ago, now resurfaces bringing all today's horrendous requirements into play. Why is such to be?<br /><br />Truth is, there are those who do belong behind bars, to be monitored for life. Those who have committed such horrible crimes that cannot be satisfactorily punished regardless of what the courts dictate. Those who do commit over and over the crimes against children and adults as well, exist. How many? That I cannot answer. What can be stated is the majority of "sex offenses" are well beyond common sense. Not every action is a sex offense, though the elected leaders would have you believe so.<br /><br />The application of sex crime is out of control and more "offenses" are dreamed up and included daily. When is the public to understand the actions of today may become the crime of tomorrow? The innocent baby pictures that are taken and exist for oh so many years, today could be and would be considered child porn under the standards set by those in power. You could be charged with child pornography without even understanding the why of the charge.<br /><br />Halloween is once again upon us. Everywhere you look today, the unfounded fear that sex offenders are out in droves to molest or steel your children has brought "restrictions" that sex offenders are mandated to follow. Anything from reporting to jail, probation parole offices, locking their doors, turning off the lights, to placing "pumpkins" in their windows or on their doors exist. Special "visits" by the police are scheduled to insure sex offenders are following the "rules" or be subjected to immediate arrest. Sex Offenders are forbidden to partake in any activities to include those within their own families.<br /><br />There has never been a case of any child being molested or stolen by a sex offender on Halloween.<br /><br />Every holiday, this is becoming the "norm" in today's society. From those in power to the media, the standard is to keep the horror of sex offenders alive, to have the public fear for their children, to amass in rallies or other groups, demanding that those officials do something to drive the sex offender and family out of their neighborhoods. What is the justification? Sex offenders can never be changed, they will always commit another crime. Our anger and the safety of our children give us license to do what ever it takes against any sex offender and if they have a family, that family is either stupid, or like the offender and should be punished the same.<br /><br />November 1st, all this will behind us once again. No one was molested, no child stolen. Things can calm down for a few weeks. Then we can start it all again come Thanksgiving, then Christmas, New Years. New demands will be voiced. New restrictions submitted. Further disenfranchisement of sex offenders and families be put into place. The public is unwilling to learn. The fear ingrained into them is much to powerful to allow opposing views and facts enter. The blinders remain.<br /><br />Not every offense is a sex crime, not every person is a sex offender, not every person will commit another sex offense. Education works. Counseling works. This travesty must come to an end.<br /><br /><em></em>Avendorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779528871105597399noreply@blogger.com1