Lawmen warning people snoring On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Bob Hurt <[email protected]
> wrote: Preface, see comments from an unnamed correspondent way below, and Darren Michaels below. I might post this in an array of very public forums so as to clarify my position once and for all. I do not advocate violence against Government to solve problems with Government. However, I point to the Civil War and American Revolution as examples of what people do when they find abuse by government employees intolerable. People should never tire of explaining this to government employees who appear to misbehave under color of law. I have not drawn attention to the hundreds or thousands of clandestine assassinations of and by government operatives (criminal and otherwise) over the past three centuries through fake suicides, suffocation, poison, travel accidents, abductions leading to burials, slipping into a river, lake, or ocean for quasi-accidental drowning, and the like. Given a choice (if I had no other course available) of violent methods for dealing with the Gerp (Government Employee who Perpetrates crime), I would probably tend to favor remote or delayed assassination to outright rebellion. But I imagine Gerps have murdered far more innocent citizens than vice versa. Regardless of what kind of administrative, legal, or political action the People of America take to excise Gerps from government, the Peopld must remain steadfastly certain of two things: 1. The Gerp must go, and 2. Whoever stands the closest to opportunity and means MUST act decisively and effectively to excise that Gerp from Government. PERIOD. NO EXCUSES. Naturally, I favor the LEAST INJURIOUS MEANS, such as 1. Administrative (e.g., letters to internal affairs), 2. Legal (e.g., lawsuits), and 3. Mildly Political (e.g., election and initiative campaigns, and "acting up" with Ghandi/King-style marches, demonstrations, and civil disobedience). As you well know from my history, I walk the talk. I have used the administrative process competently to effect beneficial changes in Government. Read my Loyalty Oaths in Florida document for details. Naturally, assassinations and violent rebellion constitute the very last resort as a means of excising Gerps. Citizens should avoid both because of their tendency to err in judgment and the associated destructiveness, injury, and personal danger. Government operatives will try to jail or kill Citizens who choose assassination and rebellion as means of excising Gerps. Therefore Citizens should carefully consider the consequences and properly prepare for contingencies before undertaking such extreme methods of terminating abuse by government employees. In the end, each Citizen must understand, face, and make the choice of excising entrenched 1
crime and criminals from government, and embrace the consequences. Dr. Edwin Vieira says the US Government always abides by the Constitution, and that when government employees violate the Constitution, they become ultra-vires. That means they become Gerps - outlaws, no longer legitimate functionaries of Government. They operate as fakes or imposters under "color of law." Seeing the situation in that light, Citizens should have no compunction about taking swift, decisive, resolution action in removing Gerps from power. Citizens owe Gerps less deference than they owe a mugger on the street. Unfortunately, many Gerps have such an iniquitous, pernicious, malignant nature that they will injure or kill any Citizen who attempts to excise them from power. The job of a Citizen becomes fraught with danger without aggressive support from the FBI and other watchers of public corruption. And, as you know, the FBI and DOJ work under a political superstructure that often becomes ultra-vires and malignant itself. You do remember the Fast and Furious gun-running program, right? Imagine yourself standing in the way of the Attorney General while he spearheaded that criminal enterprise. I point you to our government's own example of my attitude about the periodic need for a possiblity of use of violence to curb government crime. Look at the language of this recent headline.
Obama: No options off table on Iran nuclear program | Reuters
Jan 25, 2012 – WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned Iran on ... on its disputed nuclear program with no options off the table but said the ... You see? Some behaviors, nationally or internationally, present such potent danger that NO option comes "off the table" for quelling them. I have effectively said the same thing. Citizens cannot take ANY options off the table when it comes to preserving America's limited constitutional republic and ensuring that government employees stand true to their loyalty oaths. Since no law punishes violation of the loyalty oath, the People themselves must enforce those oaths using the administrative, legal, and political processes available to them, "with NO OPTIONS OFF THE TABLE." Your correspondent below quoted some things I wrote in the past and then quoted some laws, apparently intending to make me look like a law violator. I have not violated laws related to advocating violence against government. Nevertheless, I ask you to consider the validity of any law proclaiming it illegal to remove crime and criminals from government when those criminals prevent the People from obtaining the just functions of government. The Constitution became only the most recent part of the ORGANIC LAW of America. It came after the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Northwest Ordinance. The Declaration itself lays out a past politically sound framework for rebelling against illegitimate behavior of the monarch at the time and his functionaries. Those principles remain as true today as then. No American should ever lose sight of them. People of the world, particularly Americans, have spilled much blood in behalf of those principles through recent centuries. Dr. Vieira made a similar point in his recent Militia book. entitled The Sword and 2
Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”. In it he shows Americans how to stand fast against oppressors of Constitutional rights. He suggests that Americans should not depend upon government employees alone to police other government employees. WHAT is a militia of the several states? A band of armed men and women throughout the United States of America, organized for the purpose of enforcing their Constitutional rights AND the structure of governments in and over the several states. That implies the constant threat of legitimate force and violence against Gerps. The Constitution itself contemplates that in the 2nd Amendment. I am not the first to have dealt with the question of how to identify and excise Gerps when the FBI, DOJ, and Courts fail to do it. Frankly, I see two kinds of Gerp situations that the public can recognize: 1. A Gerp directly directly deprives a Citizen of one or more rights guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws pursuant thereto (abusive cop, deputy sheriff, prosecutor, clerk, judge, or administrative functionary); 2. A Gerp fails to adhere to duty or commits broadly public act that exceeds Constitutional authority (certain provisions of the Patriot Act, NDAA, gun control laws, restrictions on the rights of felons after release from prison, interference with parental rights, legalized plunder through welfare programs, waging of illegal wars, loans and grants of aid to foreign nations, "nation building," CIA/DEA drug running, DOJ gun running, ballot box stuffing, eminent domain for private use, lobbying by corporations and foreign governments that deprive Citizens of access to legislators, failure to examine credentials of nominees for election/appointment, nearly universal suffrage that lets the ignorant, indigent, and incompetent vote, lack of laws to protect children from being born stupid, abusive income tax, stripping state legislatures of representation in US government, etc., ad nauseum). #1 above naturally outrages individual victims of abuse by individual government employees. But all the rest of the people who did not witness those isolated instances of government naturally assume government employees are good, and the abuse victims just complain for no reason, or deserved whatever bad treatment the Gerp dished out to them. #2 above causes great alarm to students of history. They understand the fact that the electors of America have grown profoundly irresponsible and stupid over the past century (through universal suffrage). They know that individual voter ignorance and irresponsibility have resulted in impossibly lopsided elections, unconscionable debt, disgraceful welfare spending, and essentially destroyed the ability of informed, intelligent people to control who rises to power in Government. This alone has resulted in having a President without constitutionally required natural-born-citizen status. Voters seem to have lost their minds and become like rudderless ships in a monsoon of ignorance and confusion. That alone could justify a groundswell of rebellion in the minds of those who understand the reason for constitutional limitations on government employee power. The intelligent and informed realize that the plethora of Gerps in government have largely arisen from demagogues or their minions who cultivate the good will of the stupid, ignorant, and irresponsible electorate. So, because that portion of the electorate has become America's domestic enemy by electing and keeping in power career Gerps. 3
#1 and #2 above constitute the backdrop of many of the "sovereign citizen" activities the SPLC, CBS, ABC, and even FOX News complain about. No one should whine that informed and disgruntled Americans start turning to sovereign citizen and militia activities to restore sanity and Constitutionality to Government. Many see America's crepuscular political horizon and believe they must prepare for dark and stormy days ahead. I hope you understand these realities, and read my writings more carefully in the context I have provided above. I don't advocate violence against legitimate Government. I discourage it. And yet, regardless of the fact that I don't advocate violence, I recognize it as a historically legitimate last resort as determined by the individual Citizen, and then only against Gerps and their supporters. And, because I can read, understand, and agree with the lessons of history, I don't rule it out. Bob Hurt
On 10/21/2012 06:20 PM, darren michaels wrote: Bob, I am concerned about your emails that may be misconstrued as promoting violence which is unacceptable to many law-abiding citizens or the sovereign people of this state and other states. If you have ever read about positive civil changes of the past from some of the great people such as, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Marin Luther King, etc. you will understand the three necessary components were in place within their movements, which are defined as: 1. A right and just cause; 2. NON-VIOLENT; 3. had to contain the masses;
I, myself have never advocated violence but instead have attempted to educate myself on the law, ranging from Common law, Equity and statutory law. You know yourself that I have dealt with government officials that have operated outside their scope of duties. The agencies that are to assist the people against such malice intent are sometimes in collusion with these rogue officials.
The key is education and not violence and the masses. I realize that our biggest problem we face today is the lack of government accountability that has placed us in the mess that we are in. I realize that waiting for the enforcement power against these rogue officials can be trying and discouraging at times but you must persevere in the right conduct. 4
I hope though, you refrain from your current mind set of violence, is not good and its not right. Under our Constitution, it is the People, who are sovereign, not the government bodies. The people have the final say. “We Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.” Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 122; 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) Mr. Justice Douglas dissenting.
Stay in peace with all.
From: [name withheld] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:28 AM To: 'Bob Hurt' Subject: Please let me know what the Lawman Group says...
The reason why I don’t want you advocating violence is because it could be construed as a criminal offense. While I don’t agree with many of your positions, I do see a guy who cares. I want you to know that I care, too. I am retired law enforcement and I served in a quasi-judicial position of public authority for seven years. I know how the law can be applied to those the ‘system’ wants to silence. Be open to constructive criticism. Even if the state/feds didn’t prosecute you; with the statements you have sent to me below, you would be put on ‘watch’ lists – and you won’t like it.
For a citizen, self defense is the only time violence can be justified. We are not back in the late 1700’s fighting a ruling British empire. We are a country of law.
• So when you, Doc and Montgomery and Jack, urge me to stop talking to you about violence, I begin to question your ethics, integrity, reasoning, and sanity, but I rather suspect you have
a political motive – you don’t want anybody to accuse you of plotting to overthrow government because that will diminish your credibility in the minds of the crooks in government who cannot stand a challenge to their hegemony.
SO, PLEASE, try not to preach to me against violence.
• My point here: You and I, to claim status as “responsible” Citizens, MUST hold gerps PERSONALLY responsible for their crimes, and make it a HUGE issue, ZERO tolerance.. If a cop or judge stomps someone’s liberties without a proper cause, a proper complaint should get him and his paycheck suspended till a grand jury inquiry exonerates him, and if that becomes impossible, then let nature take its course for a lynching will often follow in short order. We simply cannot escape these harsh realities.
• I do understand your general reluctance to see Citizen violence against gerps as a fundamental method.
• When the members of government who should defend your rights to the death become the violators of your rights, ONLY their physical removal from power can solve the problem. And that is the central function of rebellions, assassinations, the FBI’s claim of interest in public corruption and the actual arrests, trials, convictions, and incarcerations that take place from time to time.
• Violence as an option for dealing with rogues in government is ALWAYS an option, whether you like it or not.
The US Patriot Act defines conduct that would constitute ‘terrorism:’
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that-(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended-(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
Florida Statute Chapter 784.011 Assault. (1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to someone else, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. _____________ A criminal threat is a threat made by one person to physically harm and/or kill someone else. This threat must be made in such a way that the individual that the threat is against feels fear for their well-being, safety, and life; or feels fear for others. This also implies that an individual who makes a serious and reasonable threat, even if they don’t intend to carry it out. They key is that the individual or individuals on the receiving end of the threat feel that the threat is real and imminent. The threat must be communicated to the individual for whom it is against either by writing, through a form of electronic communication (including the use of e-mail and text), and/or verbally. A verbal threat does not have to be made by the individual who intends to do the harming; a third party can also deliver the threat and the first party can still be charged with making a criminal threat.
-Bob Hurt P.O. Box 14712 Clearwater, FL 33766-4712 (727) 669-5511 Phone App Visit My Home Page · Email Me · Visit My Blog reads tag Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now) Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now) Donate to my Law Scholarship Fund. -You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lawmen" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen?hl=en. www.genocide2012.com Genocide coming soon to every neighborhood