I’ve recently been spending time reviewing the “prosecution” of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
While reviewing the facts of the case I noticed something interesting: the primary sponsor and six of the eight members of the United States Senate who co-sponsored the Anti-Terrorism and “Effective” Death Penalty Act of 1996 bill have what appear to be ties to the Klu Klux Klan:
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] (Primary sponsor)
Sen Gramm, Phil [TX]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT]
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen Nickles, Don [OK]
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY]
Sen Thurmond, Strom [SC]
Examine for a moment a portion of the timeline of Mr. Abu-Jamal’s “prosecution”:
Rich Paul remains incarcerated for exercising his right to have a peaceful revolution against unjust laws. “Unjust laws” in my humble opinion are those laws that are unsupported by science, immoral, and completely unchangeable by democracy.
I find this completely unacceptable.
I (like everyone else) have the right to ignore RSA 311:7‘s oh-so-mysterious “commonly” reference (wink, wink) if it means peacefully practicing law in court to reform the government. The law belongs to The People… not a private monopoly organization beholden to the government and centered on control and profit.
Rich Paul is a good man who has been following the direction given him in Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution. He has been doing it even though he has never sworn an oath to the document.
If I’m not mistaken… all of you all have.
I demand the NH Constitution be followed and Rich be released by 05/13/13. If Rich does not walk free, I will be taking on his appeal. Pardon him, commute his sentence, leave the back door unlocked, let a bird fly up to his window with a key… it really doesn’t matter to me.
Let him go.
Many moons ago I posted on the Free Keene Forum that police officers in New Hampshire who arrest the sick using marijuana were do so illegally.
After much reflection on the issue, today I am forced to stand by my previous position. Today I find the need to stand further up than I did just a few years ago.
Police officers in New Hampshire have no right to arrest people under state law, anybody, for possession of cannabis. Read Part I, Article 10 for yourself:
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.]
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784
The federal Drug Enforcement Administration ruled back in the 1980s that Cannabis is safe. Politicians have consistently hid this information from you. They rely on you either not knowing the law or not being able to afford to defend yourself.
Guess what? Now you know! (more…)
Those of you who often read this blog will know that I have long been a critic of US Customs and Border Protection. My critique has always been their authority to force people to answer questions in light of the 5th Amendment when entering our country.
Last year I even campaigned for High Sheriff in Coos County, NH and spent considerable time talking about the issue.
Last week I dropped my suit against the United States Government because I’ve been convinced that their legal position is correct.
WHEN YOU ARE AT THE BORDER DEALING WITH US CUSTOMS YOU ARE NOT IN THE UNITED STATES. YOU >MUST< DISCLOSE EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE WHILE OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY OR YOU CAN AND WILL FACE SERIOUS LEGAL PENALTIES.
IF YOU CITE MY CASE OR ACTIVISM AT THE BORDER AS A REASON NOT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS I WILL HELP THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IF THEY CHOOSE TO PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
The lower (or any) border of the United States is just that: a special zone where the 5th Amendment doesn’t apply.
US CBP and US Attorney in AZ: My sincere apologies for the legal headaches I caused with this issue. I was wrong.
It allows people who have been found by a court to be mentally defective, people who have committed multiple violent felonies, and people who are illegal drug users/addicts to legally carry firearms. It is worded in such a clever way so that most people who don’t understand the law would gloss right over it.
The catch is the guns have to belong to the Government.
Our national policy is that it is okay to be legally crazy, a multiple violent felon, and to be a user of illegal drugs while carrying a gun… so long as you work for the government.