LibertyForum - View topic - Federal Agent Powers And The Need For Change - The official Militia of Georgia discussion site - Free Message Board Hosting by FreePowerBoards.com

I use to be pro law enforcement until it a terrible incident happened to me. I was kidnapped and tortured by three DEA agents who denied me my rights and lied to get me indicted. How often do things like this happen? http://www.geocities.com/geewash76/index.html

geewash, I was neutral on that issue but, never had any kind of trouble with the law until I was about 40.

When I complained about local cops violating the law, they reacted in a vengeful way, spending over $780,000 harassing me and trying to convict me for crimes that never occured.

They even put me on an enemy combatant list and were poised to raid my home and kill me on the basis that I was a "domestic terrorist." Fortunately, the Atlanta Journal Constitution caught wind of their questionable activities and investigated me.

The Chief Editorial writer finally concluded in an article that I had "...never been a threat, imminent or otherwise."

Last year the cops killed a 92 year old grandmother with a no knock warrant that was based upon the word of criminal snitch they were paying to tell them which homes housed drug dealers. The snitch lied, the grandmother died.

Criminal cops are the rule today, not the exception.

Talk about ironic--there is an ad by the sponsor just below the original post in this thread from:

www.EarnMyDegree.com

And it is touting a Degree in Criminal Justice!

Interesting.

So, geewash, a couple of questions:

Did you put together that website before or after your episode began?

And in the part on there that is called 'My Story', why do you **** the names of some of the agents, and locations, while you leave others spelled out?

Oh, one more question:

I see you have the ACLU and Amnesty international as a couple of your links on there.

Were they able to help you?

BTW--just a little Adminisrative note--Did you get my PM indicating that you would be activated? I've been wondering if that was going thru OK, or not.

Cordially

CDJ
_________________
A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what they are made for.

I put my website together after the episode began however I have written the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department with no reply. I have decided to write the Judiciary Committees and their members of both the Senate and House of Representatives on what has happened to me. I have blocked out names of agents and other things since the case is ongoing and I do not want to prejudice myself somehow. I will reveal both the agent's names as well as locations when I know it is safe to do so for myself and my family. I changed the names of all of the other co-defendants.

I rechecked my email and I found I did see a notification from you that I would be activated.

Enforcer, I have mixed feelings about your reply. I hate to hear that this is not an isolated problem but your story truly saddens and enrages me. The government seems to have unlimited amounts of money and resourses to destroy someones life. In your story we see how these policies actually destroys truly innocent lives. I am sorry to hear of your situation

geewash76 wrote:

I rechecked my email and I found I did see a notification from you that I would be activated.

Thanks geewash. I can deduce that the others are receiving the same!

When you post your intro, give us a general area of CA that you are in. (Unless that might compromise your case). We might be neighbors! I'm way down south.

Cordially

CDJ
_________________
A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what they are made for.

If we truly had a Militia like the founders of this
country envisioned then these incidents would not be
happening by the same people more than once.

I feel like crying out to God, "HOW LONG O LORD will these
transgressions multiply in the land??!!??"
_________________
Don't Tread On ME....lest my fangs wind up in your foot ! Smile

Opinionated Missourian wrote:

"I feel like crying out to God, "HOW LONG O LORD will these
transgressions multiply in the land??!!??"

These transgressions will continue until we unify, stand together, and resist evil. If you don't like your fellow militia brother's personality, suck it up. If someone bruises your ego, be tough and let it roll right off of you.

Unite. Stand together. Commit to a common set of goals and objectives. Seek wise counsel. Act on your convictions.

I'm not talking about something abstract here. I'm doing more about this in the Militia News Forum in a thread about the election process we're in.

Agreed, Enforcer!

It's easy for people like you and me, Enforcer, to do those things (suck it up, let it roll off, etc); but we're talking about spoiled American brats don't forget. LOL

Does anyone know how to make a spoiled brat appreciate something? TAKE IT AWAY. That's why our Rights are being systematically destroyed: because we have too many spoiled, unthankful brats in America now days instead of people like the ones in/on this forum!

We have lots of work ahead of us to change that trend.
_________________
Don't Tread On ME....lest my fangs wind up in your foot ! Smile

I think because of the media and government these brats are made to obey or be looked upon in a negative light. These brats you refer to are being spoon fed what to think and I believe when government has their finger in how the 'brats' are educated you come out with what we now have. The founding fathers would never let this happen.

Even some cops see the problem:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim33.htm

Cordially

CDJ
_________________
A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what they are made for.

geewash76 wrote:

These brats you refer to are being spoon fed what to think and I believe when government has their finger in how the 'brats' are educated you come out with what we now have.

I agree with your entire sentiment; and, in response to what I quoted of yours.....THAT is exactly why my child will NEVER attend a public school.
_________________
Don't Tread On ME....lest my fangs wind up in your foot ! Smile

for the most part what i see is ex soldiers being hired as police officers which is coming close to a military action on our streets you can not train a soldier to do his job in iraq and then put him on our streets were we have actual rights and expect good things to happen i fully support our troops and always will i don't believe that they make good police officers, also keep in mind that we used to refer to the officers as peace officers now they are law enforcement can anyone tell us the difference..... freedom vs tearony used to the peace officer would use his authority to help citizens ie come when they are called to keep the peace now we have road blocks and speed traps to help supplement tax collections and turn every one into a suspected criminal
I am going through the legle system for my son the investigator lied on stand about her comments to me when i talked to my lawyer i was told that it was not uncommon it is refeard to as a necessary tactic to obtain a desired verdict the implication is that its is their job to desire to have you labeled a crimanal so for them to be good at their job they have to be able to restrict you from your rights at all cost it has created a us vs them mentality ie: waco how dare a citizen question the actions of the BATFE and this goverment ~Charles Shumer
_________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

the bigger issue is in this that i found on the American bar associations web sight all lawyers belong to this as do prosecutors and judges and this is their own words

Special Committee on Gun Violence
Second Amendment Issues

Court Decisions
Read selected court opinions that support the principle that the Second Amendment does not prevent the regulation of firearms.

As part of a comprehensive policy position adopted in 1994, the ABA committed itself to work to better inform the public and lawmakers through a sustained educational campaign regarding the true import of the Second Amendment. Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) what, nearly seventy years later, remains clearly the law of this country -- that the scope of the people's right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free State." In Miller, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of..." the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

Until recently the lower federal courts had uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds. However, two recent federal court of appeals rulings have found an individual right in the Second Amendment.

One of these cases, District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor v. Heller has been accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court in its current term. The Heller case is a review of Parker et. al. v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, held that the appellants have an individual right to bear arms that was violated by the District of Columbia's law banning registration of handguns.The Heller decision will be the first district consideration of the question of whether the Second Amendmendment grants an individual right to bear arms in nearly 70 years.

Back to Top

This page was printed from: http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamendmentissues/home.shtml

Close Window
© 2007. American Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. ABA Privacy Statement
_________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Page generation time: 0.4776s (PHP: 100% - SQL: 0%) - SQL queries: 24 - - Debug on