Liberty Planet Weblog

Archive for October 2012

Last month near Spokane, Wash., a sheriff’s deputy in an unmarked car was driving east on I-90 when he took notice of a red pickup truck in front of him that appeared to have invalid or altered license plates. The deputy called in the plate number and received notice that there was no record of the plate.

Backup rolled. Marked cars followed the truck until it pulled into a driveway. There it was boxed in by patrol cars and a standoff began, as the truck’s occupants refused to cooperate with the officers and the officers wisely chose not to approach the vehicle. SWAT was dispatched. The driver and passenger of the truck were eventually cut from their seat belts and taken into custody.

Calling SWAT may seem like an overreaction to an expired or fake license plate. But the Washington officers were smart to do so.

They were dealing with members of an anti-government movement called “sovereign citizens.” Sovereigns believe that the government has no right to tax them, issue licenses, or do many of the other things that the average American citizen has accepted as the roles of government. They also believe that the only legitimate law enforcement officer is the elected sheriff.

For the most part sovereigns and their beliefs were not a major concern for law enforcement until two years ago. That’s when two West Memphis, Ark., officers—Brandon Paudert and Bill Evans—were murdered by a father and son team of sovereigns during a drug interdiction traffic stop. The sovereigns were later killed in a fierce gun battle in a nearby Walmart parking lot.

The West Memphis cop killings and the subsequent shootout put the sovereign citizen movement on the radar of many law enforcement officers, but there are still numerous officers who are not aware of the dangers presented by this philosophy and how to recognize its adherents.

Understanding Sovereignty

Crimes committed by sovereigns often include relatively minor offenses such as the manufacture of fraudulent license plates, registration cards, or currency. However, as this movement has quickly gained traction across the country with the assistance of the Internet and sovereign seminars promising an assorted array of “get rich quick” financial remedies, mortgage fraud, and banking fraud, threats against law enforcement officers and judicial officials by sovereigns are becoming more common place.

The tactics used by sovereigns won’t always be violent. More often, a sovereign will use document filings such as liens and lawsuits against law enforcement in an attempt to overwhelm and confuse you. Due to the evolutionary nature of police work in the United States, you need to equip yourself with knowledge to protect yourself physically, financially, and legally from these criminals and their bag of tricks aimed at disrupting the criminal justice system.

Sovereignty and sovereign citizens have existed in the United States for nearly 50 years in various forms. The roots of the sovereigns can be found in the Posse Comitatus movement of the 1970s.

“Sovereign citizen” is a broad, general term that is often applied to any individual person or group that does not believe that the laws of the United States or the state laws apply to them. In other words, they are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement authority. The term “sovereign citizen” should be viewed as an umbrella under which you will find thousands of loosely organized groups or individuals that share one basic ideological principle but approach it through different paths.

Extreme Ire

Some groups or individuals use their sovereign claims in an attempt to avoid legal trouble and circumvent common traffic laws and statutes. Others believe they are at war with the United States and are willing to use deadly force against anyone they perceive as standing in the way of their sovereign rights. Violent sovereigns are a clear and present danger to law enforcement, and you need to be prepared to deal with them safely and effectively.

While each sovereign group holds its own specific creeds, conspiracies, and focal points, what they all have in common is an extreme ire for government and its agents, and particularly law enforcement. Sovereigns generally subscribe to a loose anarchist ideology, holding firmly to notions of archaic common law doctrines, or no law at all.

Sovereigns believe in an “unimpeded God-given right to travel,” and therefore say that no officer, under any circumstance, has the right to obstruct their travel. That makes traffic stops involving sovereigns extremely perilous for officers.

Divided by Race

American sovereign groups are commonly delineated along racial lines. White American sovereigns tend to be concerned with the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, and their interpretations of those documents in a historical context. African-American sovereigns often lean toward Moorish history and African culture as the basis of their sovereignty. Religion, particularly the Moorish Science Temple, may also play a role in racial division and recruitment or indoctrination within a particular sovereign group.

While there is often noticeable racial division among sovereign groups, it is important to remember that sovereign citizens all have the same basic beliefs and will share their criminal tactics with each other. Sovereign citizens, with few exceptions and despite their differences, will choose to unite against their one common enemy: the government and its agents.

Pseudo-Legal

When attempting to understand how a group or individual comes to believe in sovereignty and exemption from statutory law, you must first understand the foundation of the movement.

Sovereigns take legitimate historical events and obscure common law and twist and change them to fit their particular claims or assertions. Their hope is that the ensuing confusion results in law enforcement and/or the judicial system’s unwillingness to effectively deal with them. The fact that most of their arguments and documents contain a slight hint of factual basis and an overwhelming amount of pseudo-legal language, including the mention of various acts, amendments, and treaties, only adds to the confusion.

One example common to the philosophies of many sovereigns is the Theory of Redemption. This theory claims that the United States went bankrupt in 1933 when it chose to no longer use the gold standard to back up its paper currency. Needing collateral to trade and conduct commerce with other countries, the United States began to use citizens as collateral to ensure the value of its money. Subsequently, secret bank accounts, containing millions of dollars, were supposedly established by the United States Treasury Department on behalf of each citizen, or “strawman,” used as collateral. Redemption is used as a gateway by sovereigns to commit various fraudulent acts all in an attempt to “redeem their strawman” and access these non-existent secret Treasury accounts to satisfy various debts, including mortgages, cars, and credit cards.

Another ideological principle of sovereignty is the 14th Amendment. Passed in 1868 and intended to galvanize and unify the country as part of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Acts, sovereigns view the 14th Amendment as another example of government trickery. They believe that the United States government illegally passed the Amendment and “tricked” all the citizens of the state republics, for example the State Republic of North Carolina, into renouncing their state citizenship and agreeing to become federal “corporate” citizens through the acceptance of government benefits.

Sovereigns believe that the federal government forced the citizens of the former state republics into obtaining birth certificates, Social Security cards, driver licenses, vehicle registration cards, and other legal documents. These “binding contracts” are viewed as null and void by sovereigns, and as such, will usually not be obtained or carried by sovereign citizens.

Sovereigns and Traffic Stops

Regardless of the particular vein of sovereignty encountered by law enforcement officers, brushes with sovereigns can be extremely predictable, and successful and safe interactions with sovereigns can be accomplished if you follow a few guidelines.

The first thing you may notice will be a fraudulent registration plate affixed to a vehicle. The plate may or may not look like a slightly altered version of a legitimate registration. It will most often contain words like “Indigenous,” “Sovereign,” “Diplomatic,” “Exempt,” or “Private Property.”

The plate will sometimes identify the particular sovereign group its owner is associated with such as “Washitaw,” “Moor,” “Mu’ur” (variation of Moor), “Little Shell Pembina,” or “Nuwaubian.” Sovereign license plates often contain images of a foreign flag, the United Nations symbol, bar codes, or hieroglyphic writing. Identifying these initial sovereign indicators, and mentally preparing for what’s to come, is critical to a successful and safe encounter.

When you stop a sovereign citizen, the encounter will be unlike any of the thousands of vehicle stops performed in your career. While you are conditioned to motorists being frustrated or even confrontational about the reason for the stop and any possible penalty, sovereigns utilize a unique mix of bullying, intimidation, and confusion to coerce their way out of the stop.

You may encounter sovereigns who refuse to roll down their window or only roll it down a matter of inches and then slide you a “Public Servant Questionnaire,” asking for your full legal name, home address, and other sensitive biographical information. Sovereigns, when stopped, may ask you to present them with your signed oath of office or to recite that oath. The sovereign will often attempt to utilize clever parsing of words to differentiate between a “vehicle” and a “conveyance,” or “driving” vs. “traveling,” all in an effort to confuse and intimidate you.

A sovereign may even present you with a bill for his time when you contact him. Sovereigns have been known to mention their “fee schedule” to officers during traffic stops, and will advise you that these self-created astronomical rates will be billed to you, all depending on the length of the stop.

Unlike the average motorist, sovereigns will not comply with simple instructions to produce a driver’s license, registration card, or proof of insurance. They will argue with you about jurisdiction and the “victim” of the alleged traffic offense.

Sovereign citizens also believe their names are private property and cannot be used, for any reason, without their expressed consent. They will view you writing their names on a citation as a copyright or trademark infringement and, consequently, attempt to conceal their full names when asked. As a result of their belief that law enforcement has no authority over them in any situation, they may become violent if asked to exit the vehicle or submit to an arrest.

And expect to be filmed. Sovereigns often video-record their interactions with law enforcement officers in hopes of intimidating officers to not enforce the law. Some of these encounters are live-streamed via the Internet to local like-minded sovereigns, and some of these people could present a possible threat to your safety.

While it might not always be possible to identify a sovereign citizen based on vehicle or registration plate indicators, you should be aware of certain key words that sovereigns are likely to use when you contact them. The mention of the following words or sentences is usually an indicator that you are dealing with a sovereign citizen:

Indigenous
Aboriginal
Oath of office
Who is the party that was harmed?
Traveling in a private capacity
Conveyance
Domicile
14th Amendment
Strawman
While the traffic stop will be unlike any other you experience, you should remember that procedure and enforcement should remain consistent. Priority number one is safety. You need to have the right mindset going into the stop and be prepared for the tactics employed by sovereigns.

Once you identify the individual as a sovereign, it’s important to not get wrapped up in the copious amount of paperwork he will produce during the encounter. Identify the paperwork as sovereign propaganda and of no significance to the stop and maintain a high level of officer awareness and safety. Decisive decision making and enforcement of the law is the best way to ensure maximum officer safety and send a clear message that these sovereign tactics are ineffective in your particular jurisdiction.

Finally, call for backup if you sense any physical threat coming from a suspected sovereign citizen. While violent encounters with adherents of this philosophy are rare, they can be sudden and deadly.

Paper Terrorists

Rumors and stories are currently circulating among many police agencies nationwide that sovereign citizens will initiate lawsuits against officers, departments, cities, and counties, and they will file liens against anyone who refutes their claims of sovereignty. Some sovereigns might even issue bogus-looking documents stating they are indictments or arrest warrants. For the most part, this is true. This most common and effective tactic used by sovereign citizens is called “paper terrorism.”

The goal for sovereign citizens using this tactic is to initially frighten a law enforcement officer away from even initiating a stop on sovereigns, let alone making criminal charges against them. They want the threat of a lawsuit or lien to help insulate them from local, state, and federal rules, regulations, and laws. They aspire to clog up the court system with as much paperwork as possible and hope that the end result is no one wanting to deal with them because they are such a nuisance.

Sovereigns will usually add up the amount of time they were “inconvenienced” or detained, the value for copyright or trademark infringement for writing their name on a citation and, per their fictitious fee schedule, decide on an exorbitant figure for a lawsuit. These lawsuits are often filed in federal or state court and may be served on an officer at his home or agency. While meritless, the lawsuits need to be addressed through the proper channels and handled by your respective police, city, county, or state attorney in a timely fashion.

Sovereigns might also place a lien on an officer’s property as retribution. While the sovereign never plans on collecting, the lingering effect on the officer could be devastating if not addressed immediately and handled properly. It is imperative to continuously check your credit for signs of illegal activity and to also check with the Clerk of Courts and Register of Deeds offices in your particular county for sovereign filings against you.

Sovereign citizens can and will be violent toward law enforcement. They do not believe in the legitimacy of the government, the validity of laws, or the authority to enforce any laws against them. This is completely different from the “typical” criminal that you deal with on a regular basis.

The typical criminal runs away or resists because you have the authority to take him or her to jail. Sovereign citizens resist because they believe that you are violating their sovereignty and that they are allowed to defend themselves using deadly physical force.

Sovereigns may not always be violent. It’s impossible to know when they’ll decide to use force against you. But you need to be prepared and you need to understand the mentality of this movement. If you educate yourself and the public on the multitude of fraudulent scams and tactics used by sovereign citizens, and you continue to maintain a high level of officer safety when dealing with them, you will be as effective as possible in combating this growing concern within the law enforcement community.

Editor’s note: At press time two Louisiana officers—Deputies Brandon Nielsen and Jeremy Triche of the St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff’s Office, Louisiana—were killed in an encounter with men suspected of being members of Posse Comitatus, a splinter group of the sovereign citizen movement.

Source: Police Magazine

Police are fear mongering anyone who knows the Constitution and their rights! If you question the police, you must be a terrorist.

Advertisements

The choice of the word “unadulterated” is not accidental. There were many different kinds of gold standard, including what we now call the Classical Gold Standard, the Gold Bullion Standard, and the Gold Exchange Standard. Each contained flaws; each was adulterated.

For example, in the Coinage Act of 1792, the government forced the price of one thing to be fixed in terms of another thing. The mechanism was in Section 11:

“And be it further enacted, That ”the proportional value of gold to silver in all coins which shall by law be current as money within the United States, shall be as fifteen to one…”

Of course, people respond to such distortions. When the government fixes the price of something too low, then people will hoard or export it. If the price is fixed too high, then they will flood the market with it.

According to Craig K. Elwell, in his 2011 Congressional Research Service Report:

“Because world markets valued them [gold and silver] at a 15½ to 1 ratio, much of the gold left the country and silver was the de facto standard.”

Subsequently, the government changed direction. Elwell notes:

“In 1834, the gold content of the dollar was reduced to make the ratio 16 to 1. As a result, silver left the country and gold became the de facto standard.”

If the law dictates the ratio between gold and silver, then only one metal—the one that is undervalued—will be used. It would be extremely difficult for the government to get the ratio exactly right. And even if so, as soon as the market value changed the ratio would be wrong and only one metal would circulate.

The government should not attempt to force a price onto the market. In the unadulterated gold standard, the market is allowed to set the price of silver, copper, oil, wheat, a fine wool suit, and everything else. It allows people to use gold, or silver, or seashells as money if they wish (the market has not chosen seashells in modern history).

Throughout the 19th century, there were various state laws to impose new kinds of restrictions on the banks. One popular restriction was that in order to obtain a charter (permission to operate as a bank), the bank had to buy state government bonds. This theme—forcing banks to buy government bonds—was to recur later.

This is a pernicious idea. Banks must have an earning asset to match the liability of the deposit accounts. Why not make them buy some government bonds as a condition for permission to operate? Because this is obviously blackmail. In a free country, one should not need to ask permission to be in business and one should not be forced to do something in exchange for that permission.

This policy has two economic effects.

First, it pushes the price of the government bond higher than it would otherwise be, which means it pushes down the rate of interest. This distortion ripples throughout the entire economy.
Second, it exposes the state-chartered bank to the fiscal irresponsibility in the state capitol. And of course the state capitol is encouraged to borrow and spend by this very perverse policy, because they know that there is always a market for their bonds. This lasts until they default, of course. And when they do, the state-chartered banks become insolvent. This is not a failure of the gold standard, or of the free market. It is a failure of a deficit spending policy and central planning.
There is another problem with this scheme. The bank takes in deposits, especially demand deposits, and it buys bonds, especially longer-dated bonds. This is called “borrowing short to lend long”, and it is dangerous because if the depositors want to redeem their gold or silver, the bank may be in a position where it has only an illiquid bond. Obviously, the depositor does not want a government bond, and so the bank can be forced to default in a “run on the bank”.

All borrowing short to lend long schemes, also called “duration mismatch”, collapse sooner or later. This is because the depositor, who is the ultimate issuer of the credit, is signaling that he only wishes to extend credit for short duration. But the bank has expanded long-term credit. This is not the bank’s decision to make, and by disrespecting its depositors’ intentions, it makes itself vulnerable to a run.

In 1864, the National Banking Act imposed a tax of 10% on notes issued by state banks. Needless to say, state-chartered banks responded to this threat of mass robbery. There were 1466 state-chartered in 1863. Five years later, 83% of them had either gone out of business or become nationally chartered.

One of the provisions of this Act was to require nationally chartered banks to hold US government bonds in order to issue nationally standardized bank notes and other liabilities. One key reason for this was that the federal government was eager to finance the civil war (1861 – 1865). In later years, when the federal government wanted to pay down its debt, this squeezed the banks and the result was deflation and panics.

The problem was exacerbated when the federal government resumed the minting of coins. The “Crime of 1873″ was the name many gave to the Coinage Act of 1873, which demonetized silver. This was an enormous wealth transfer from the small saver such as the farmer who had silver stored at home into the hands of the wealthy who kept gold in the banks.

These problems occurred under the Classical Gold Standard. Even before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, we saw the following adulterations:

A fixed gold:silver price ratio in a bimetallic monetary standard. The unintended consequence was that first gold, and later silver, fled the country.

Laws forcing banks to seek permission to operate. Big-spending governments, needing a market for their bonds, forced banks to buy their bonds in various schemes in exchange for permission to operate. This exposed banks to bank runs and bankruptcy when the bonds defaulted, and created a new problem when the size of the banking system was restricted by the value of government bonds outstanding.

Demonetizing one metal shifts wealth from one class of saver to another.

Duration mismatch causes the business cycle. The boom occurs due to credit expansion beyond the intent of the savers. The bust begins when there are significant redemptions by depositors who need their money. A full panic occurs when other depositors realize that the bank is not holding either money or short-duration assets such as Bills. The bank holds illiquid long-term bonds and cannot pay depositor redemptions. The run turns into bankruptcy. The panic turns into a wide scale depression.

Source: Zero Hedge

This Thanksgiving, Infowars.com is giving thanks for the First Amendment, by getting back in the faces of those who are attempting to abuse their authority to silence free speech and in turn conceal flagrant abuses of our rights and our basic dignity – with the launch of the national Opt Out and Film campaign.

Of course, every week should be First Amendment week, but we’re picking one week in particular as part of a grass roots outreach that we hope will contribute towards putting an end to what has come to represent the face of big government tyranny – the Transportation Security Administration.

In November 2010, the national opt out day was a huge success that generated massive media attention. The TSA was forced to mothball most of its radiation-firing body scanners for that one day in a desperate attempt to avoid embarrassment – a political act that proved the naked scanners had nothing whatsoever to do with genuine security concerns.

Continue reading at Infowars

I am amazed at how many Christians I read about and hear of that are planning to vote for Romney because he is a Republican or the lesser of two evils. Voting for Romney is evil. It doesn’t matter who is running for the Democrats. Voting for Romney is still evil. If Hitler himself were the Democratic nominee, voting for Romney would still be evil. Even if Romney is less evil than Obama (a very dubious assertion), voting for Romney would still be evil. As a Christian, I won’t vote for evil because the Bible says: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2).

Source: LRC Blog

A new study shows prescription sleeping pills bring an increased risk of dying early—or getting cancer. So why is FDA rubber-stamping such dangerous drugs?

Sleep deprivation is a serious issue. As many as 70 million Americans suffer from insomnia and other sleep disorders. Some 60 million prescriptions for sleeping pills—technically called hypnotic drugs—were filled in 2011 as compared to 47 million in 2006.

Stress, an over-full lifestyle, poor diet, and especially the use of artificial light in the evening after going to bed, can all prevent sleep. As we reported earlier this year, lack of sleep makes you more likely to get sick, raises your risk of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity, and makes you more prone to depression.

Some of the risks of sleeping pills are already well-documented: daytime drowsiness, headaches, nausea, dizziness, and addiction. But a new study published in the British Medical Journal says that people taking a prescription sleeping pill—even when taking fewer than eighteen pills per year—have nearly four times the mortality rate of those who don’t take the drugs. And patients who take higher doses of sleeping pills have a 35% increased cancer risk.

This study was prompted by earlier studies showing that hypnotic drugs are often deadly when mixed with alcohol or other drugs, are linked to an increased risk of car accidents and falls, may raise risk of suicide, and may damage chromosomes in cells which could lead to cancer.

What was significant about this study is that it was long-term, keeping track of 10,529 people who had at least one prescription for a sleeping pill between 2002 and 2007, compared with a control group. While the study doesn’t demonstrate causation, it did adjust for confounding factors such as age, smoking, weight, and other health conditions.

So why is FDA approving such dangerous sleeping pills? For one thing, the clinical trials required for FDA approval may be inadequate when it comes to hypnotic drugs. Many people take non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics for years, even though most are approved for only short-term use and their safety and effectiveness were not evaluated beyond several weeks in clinical trials. (One exception is Lunesta, which was tested for up to six months, and its list of known side effects is terrifying.)

Compare this to the FDA’s standard for supplements: the NDI draft guidance requires “25 years of widespread use” in order to meet the “history of safe use” standard, which must be met even for grandfathered supplements. (For more on grandfathered ingredients, see our article in this issue.) As the Life Extension Foundation points out, the safety testing required by FDA is wildly inappropriate for supplements, and is unnecessary for natural products with years of documented safe use. Yet despite their superb track record for safety, FDA and the media have cultivated an environment of fear around nutritional supplements—while maintaining a casual attitude toward dangerous (but approved) drugs.

If you have a sleep problem, consider natural approaches to help with your insomnia, and review these tips for improving your sleep. Sweet dreams!

Source: Alliance for Natural Health

By Gene Emery

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – At least two thirds of people with advanced cancer in a new survey believed the chemotherapy they’re receiving might cure them, even though the treatment is only being given to buy some time or make them comfortable.

“Their expectations are way out of line with reality,” Dr. Deborah Schrag of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston told Reuters Health.

Her team reports in the New England Journal of Medicine that 69 percent who were terminally ill with lung cancer, and 81 percent with fatal colorectal cancer, did not understand that their chemotherapy was not at all likely to eliminate their tumors.

When lung cancer or colorectal cancer has spread, chemotherapy may extend survival for weeks or months at a cost of some substantial side effects.

Perhaps ironically, the patients who had the nicest things to say about their doctors’ ability to communicate with them were less likely to understand the purpose of their chemotherapy than patients who had a less-favorable opinion of their communication with their physician.

“This is not about bad doctors and it’s not about unintelligent patients,” said Schrag. “This is a complex communication dynamic. It’s hard to talk to people and tell them we can’t cure your cancer” because doctors find it uncomfortable to hammer home grim news and patients don’t want to believe it.

“If patients actually have unrealistic expectations of a cure from a therapy that is administered with palliative intent, we have a serious problem of miscommunication that we need to address,” write Drs. Thomas Smith and Dan Longo of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in a commentary accompanying the study.

“This may explain why two months before death, half of all patients with lung cancer have not heard any of their doctors use the word ‘hospice,'” they write.

TONING DOWN OPTIMISM ‘HARD’

The study “suggests we need to spend a little more time” explaining the hard facts to patients, said Dr. Hossein Borghaei, an oncologist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the research. “Medical oncologists are going to need to tone down their optimism and enthusiasm, but it’s hard.”

The findings are based on interviews with 1,193 patients, or their surrogates, who had been diagnosed with cancer that had spread. All were receiving chemotherapy.

“The fact that 20 to 30 percent of respondents recognized that chemotherapy was not at all likely to cure them shows that at least some patients were able to accept this reality and to acknowledge it to an interviewer,” the researchers wrote.

“These are not trivial issues. Chemotherapy near the end of life is still common, does not improve survival, and is one preventable reason why 25 percent of all Medicare funds are spent in the last year of life,” write Smith and Longo.

“There is a lot of harm in not having patients understand the finality of the disease,” said Borghaei. Chemo drugs “are very powerful, they have a lot of side effects, the chemotherapy is going to harm you more than it helps you, and it can actually shorten your life. All of this should be taken into account.”

Smith and Longo said the results are probably due, in varying degrees, to patients not being told their disease is incurable, patients not being told in a way that let them understand, patients choosing to not believe the message, or patients being too optimistic. “It is probably a combination of all four possibilities,” they said.

Borghaei said the study “doesn’t take into account what patients bring to the table when they are diagnosed with incurable cancer.”

Many patients insist that they are going to beat the odds once they hear the news.

“What are you supposed to do, stand in front of someone with advanced disease and argue with them?” said Borghaei. “It’s not productive. But I hear that all the time, especially from the younger patients.”

“I think it serves as a stark reminder to physicians: just slow down, maybe take a few minutes to realize how hard this is,” said Schrag. “Recognize that this is not one conversation, but typically a series of conversations to see if they’ve understood it, and how they’re acting on it.”

When a cure is extremely unlikely, “We have to make sure people have the opportunity to plan and prepare for what is much more likely to happen,” she said.

Source: Reuters


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 30,425 hits

Categories

Top Clicks