Abu Saleh Home


Articles
Poetry
Arabic
Books
Women
Youth
Kids
Health
America
History
Food
Art
Announce..
Audio

Links
Forum
Home
Feedback
America zone - History

The Police State We Live In

Ed Lewis

The Police State We Live In

Or - If it isn't martial law, then what is?

by Ed Lewis

A large number of people have indicated their fear that we will soon be living in a police state and under martial law. However, if one investigates the matter, the only conclusion best represented by facts is that we already live in a police state. We are under martial law even without the ominous appearance of US military people on every street corner. Here are some interesting facts taken from the Justice Policy Institute:

There are presently 2 million Americans in jail, mostly for non-violent "offenses".

The US has the world's highest incarceration rate, surpassing Russia and China, and the world's largest prison population.

With less than five percent of the world's population, the US now has one-quarter (1/4) of the world's prisoners.

There are six times as many Americans behind bars as are imprisoned in the 12 countries making up the entire European Union, even though those countries have 100 million more citizens than the US.

Nearly one in three African American boys born this year will spend some time in prison.

The people of this country supposedly have a Constitution that secures the unalienable rights of the People by limiting the government - whether federal, state, or political subdivisions of a state - to actions allowed only by the Constitution. So, why do we have a disproportionately high number of prisoners?

One must assume - being facetious - that we are a people who insist on violating the rights of our fellow citizens. Our courts must be full of citizens filing complaints against their fellow citizens since the courts are so over-loaded. After all, this is the only constitutional (lawful) method of being in an Article III court of common law.

This is based on the fact that there must be a victim for one to be accused of a violation warranting a court appearance. In other words, there must have been a sovereign harmed. Government is not sovereign but is a man-made concept. It does not have human rights and, therefore, no crime may be committed against it. Remember, the rights of the sovereign remain superior to any corporate government and its 'rules'.

But, this isn't enough. The intention to harm must also be present. Accidents are just that - accidents. There is no crime without proof of intent. For example, an accidental killing of another is not pre-meditated murder and is treated differently. Or, in the case of an auto accident, it is just an accident. As long as the damage was not intentional, there is no crime.

Is this to say that the sovereign causing the accident is not potentially responsible for redress to the sovereign whose property or person he harmed? Not at all. The "victim" has to sign a complaint and then, following due process, a jury of 12 peers will determine if redress is due. In other words, the victim sues for redress. The harm that was done him is made clear in his complaint.

There is no reason for any sovereign to be jailed that has not committed a violent act against another. And, if there isn't a victim, prison or long-term jailing should not even be an option. So, what has happened? Why are so many Americans "jailed"?

The answer is simple. Governments have made "laws" that are not de jure laws, meaning laws that are written legitimately. They are instead de facto laws (under color of authority laws). These "without authority" laws have no standing in a constitutional Article III court and no sovereign man or woman (not created as a "person" by government) is bound to obey them. (This presumes we are still a country with a constitutionally established government and not subjected to Admiralty/military courts.)

"Crimes" defined by "laws" falling into the category of being de facto (false) include all traffic, registration and licensing of all types (except privileged persons, such as foreigners doing business in this country), domestic firearms, drugs, control of tobacco, alcohol, those of private property and against privacy, commerce (except in government granted corporations), interstate transportation between states (freedom to travel and conduct business and contract with any other sovereign regardless of the Republic (state) he lives in, and - - -

To make a long list short, any law applied to any American sovereign that exceeds limits placed on government are unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. A simple way of looking at it is exactly what authority do you have to boss your neighbor around? Well, government has no more authority over you than you have over your neighbor. Government made laws are as meaningless as you ordering everyone in your neighborhood to behave the way you think they should. Until, that is -

Enter armed law enforcers - Exit constitutional rights.

Any arrest made of any sovereign without a complaint signed by a sovereign stating the details of the harm done him (probable cause) is unconstitutional. The officer making the arrest has violated his oath of office. The judge trying the case violates his oath of office. The legislatures that wrote the law and allowed it used against a sovereign violate their oaths of office. All have committed treason.

Thus, the reason more Americans are in prison in disproportionately high numbers compared to other "modern" nations, is that we have millions of laws that should not exist and would not exist were it not for attorneys, courts, law enforcers, legislatures, and others in government violating their oaths of office. In other words, criminal acts by government have converted the free exercise of rights to "criminal acts".

The reasons for government-defined crimes by the government are to make government entities money - generate revenues - and to coerce compliance from the People. After all, if one hasn't harmed another, has he not behaved in a Christian and constitutional manner? Hasn't he merely expressed his unalienable rights that are beyond the control of government?

Some people who do not understand freedom will say something stupid, such as "but we have to have criminal laws and other laws". What is unsaid is "to control people". We don't need laws to control people other than those written in the words of God and secured by our Constitution. By secured is meant that government is limited to not interfering with unalienable rights.

You see, control comes from the People. If one habitually interferes with the rights of others, then one of two things will happen. The people he harms will punish him appropriately - possibly even shoot and kill him - or, after enough actions are taken against him by the people in proper Article III courts, he will mold to the will of the people.

Others who might have an inkling of resorting to infringing upon the rights of others will think of the punishment inflicted on the transgressor not by the government, but by the people. He either learns to respect the rights of others or the people harmed will punish him.

Think, for Pete's sake. Man lived together for aeons before there was any government. They lived in peace with one another (the majority except when governments pushed them into war with another) or the transgressors were forced to leave the society or killed/severely punished by the society. Nice simple formula. Then, powerful - no, ruthless - people decided they would be the government. Gradually, this (supposedly) evolved to governments respecting the rights of people. However, it has also been shown that any time power has been allowed to the few - or the one - that tyranny was the result.

This country now epitomizes tyranny by government. We don't have rights in the eyes of the government - we only have privileges. And, to assure we obey the privileges "given" us, the government uses armed force.

For example, let's say you are unconstitutionally stopped in a government "spot check" for the papers of people. No one has been harmed - you are merely exercising the right to travel as you wish. What causes you to succumb to the unconstitutional stop? What is the result if you bring up your constitutional rights and - since there is no complaint - that the officer could not possibly have "probable cause" to suspect you had violated another's rights? Probable cause is, after all, the only lawful basis to stop you.

Most important, though, is what happens if you refuse to comply. No one has to be told what will happen. Any person refusing to comply will be forced to at the point of a gun - or several guns. The "offender" will have loaded, cocked, and ready to fire weapons pointed at his head. He may be forcibly removed from his auto - along with his family - and thrown face down in the dirt or blacktop of the shoulder of the highway. He may be cuffed like an animal - along with the members of his family - and hauled off to jail, just like a stray dog or cat taken to the pound. And often treated just as poorly.

What laws are being enforced? Are they the laws of the Constitution reflecting the laws of God - or are they instead false under color of authority laws of government? I.e., does the officer uphold the Constitution or does he violate his oath to do so as soon as he starts cruising and watching people who are doing no more than exercising their right to travel freely - and stopping them without "probable cause".

Why isn't he doing his actual duty of assuring that commercial vehicles are properly licensed and insured with drivers who are people that have been qualified and licensed to operate commercial vehicles? This is the constitutional duty of the many highway patrols and local police on local streets and alleys, not the monitoring and arrest of the sovereignty (the People) in their travels.

Why do people comply? No matter what some will say, the real reason is because they are terrified to "NOT COMPLY!!!" Well, Folks, call it what you wish but it is best called living under martial law (the law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces). The law enforcers are acting as "troops" and at least one organization's employees are even called "troops" (Troop B, Missouri Highway Patrol, for example).

Our system of justice has been usurped and replaced essentially at the point of firearms held by government agents who are supported by the courts of the Admiralty/military variety. It is a system of injustice designed to control People and create unconstitutional revenues for government, an underhanded method of placing people in servitude to government. Most of all, it is a system that has been built on terrorism ordered by - and through treason committed by - thousands of officials. And then carried out by government terrorists (See USA Patriot Act) known as "law enforcers".

The effect is that our prisons and jails are overloaded with people who have harmed no one but have instead had their rights violated by government. And, it is going to get worse, not better, with the expanded authority of law enforcers.

If law enforcers want to kill you or beat the crap out of you and seize all your property, all they have to do is say you acted or looked like a "terrorist" and it appeared you were going to react violently. They may, of course, also use the "reason" of the past few years to attack and seize property of innocent people - that of the encounter being "drug related". Or, both.

Justice died at the hands of the thousands of traitors to the Constitution. And they have the gall to say they defend our rights and our person. What a crock.

It brings to mind a statement made by the character Julie Roberts in "The Pelican Brief". When the instructor in her law class asked something like how it could be a violation of 4th Amendment rights when the Supreme Court justices have ruled it was constitutional, Ms Robert's character said - "Because they're wrong." And, so it is.



Ed Lewis is a veteran writer, having been published in many online journals and newspapers. He holds a BS in Biology; as well as, a BS in Psychology with 33 hours of graduate work in Experimental Psychology. Ed also has about 8000 hours of study in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, law v legal (common law of the land v administrative law created by man), government and jurisdiction, and the Missouri Statutes.


Mr. Lewis, a Missourian dedicated to liberty and truth, may be reached for comment at elewis@mail.shighway.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Copyright Liberty For All 2002