Tag Archives: Race

Question & Answer on Federal Civil Rights Claims against State Courts, Judges, & Lawyers

Question on Facebook from the Distinguished Doctor William Todd Overcash,  M.D., in Ocala and Oklawaha, Florida:
I have a question. Who would feel safe and believe they would get a fair treatment when the Chief Judge of the Florida 5th Circuit removes members of the courts ethics committee and then assigns non qualified members and incites referral of your attorney for disbarment/sanctions 3 days after your legal team files a federal lawsuit against 7 Judges and 20 State Agencies. Be the way, the previous committee 5 months earlier had cleared your attorney.

Answer from a Madman who has been studying this question for 30 years:
Who would feel safe and belief he would get fair treatment when he enters a Dragon’s Cave for the purpose of reclaiming some or all of the gold the Dragon has accumulated by killing people over the years? Whenever you invade a Monster’s lair, you pretty much have to accept that you’ll only be leaving there one of two ways:

One way is carrying the Dragon’s head after decapitating him. The other way is when the Dragon throws out whatever’s left after he’s eaten. Fairness and safety are not rights afforded to Rebels who rise up in insurrections against Monsters or against Monstrous Tyranny.

The Federal Civil Rights laws are written so that you can only invoke Federal supervision over State Courts when individual rights are systematically deprived according to a system of racial discrimination. That MAY or may NOT have been Congress’ “original intent” in enacting 28 USC 1443 and 42 USC 1981 and 1985-1986, but it is how the Supreme Court of the United States and all inferior Federal (and most state) Courts have interpreted these otherwise majestic statutes: they are basically race-based “affirmative action” programs.

So, unless you are willing to take on the question of whether you are the victim of reverse racial discrimination, you cannot enter the Dragon’s lair and expect to come out in very good shape. It may as well be said publicly: RACE defines the struggle for American (and world) CIVIL RIGHTS.

That’s why “Black Lives Matter” is the pre-eminent radical movement of 2016. That’s why non-white immigration is the biggest issue in Europe and one of the biggest issues in the USA. That’s why Donald Trump has such a strong (even if possibly misguided) support among the Far Right/Alt Right “14/88” crowd.

If you think it is a monstrous thing to allocate fundamental rights according to race and only adjudicate claims based on race, then you think that U.S. Civil Rights is Monstrous, and when you attack these questions, you are entering the Monster’s Home…..

If you disagree with the current structure and allocation of Civil Rights and the powers to enforce them under U.S. and International Law, then you need to enter the Political Fray and try to change the law by engaging in and exercising whatever political processes may be available under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. Or indeed, as Donald Trump made waives for saying earlier this week, however indirectly and obliquely, by engaging in and exercising whatever rights and political processes may be available to you under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or, perhaps Article I, Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Article 2, Section 1 of the California Constitution is similar but in no way as absolutely or powerfully phrased:

SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

It is significant and worth noting that “protection and security” are among the purposes of government included in the California constitution but omitted from the Texas Constitution.  Providing “protection and security” has always been one of the mottos and gangster watchwords of oppressive government….

But also note that, apart from whatever may be inferred from the language of the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, no such express and explicit “right to alter, reform, or abolish…government” is clearly articulated within the United States Constitution, or the Constitution of the State of Florida.

Ferguson Riots Highlight Inequality in America (again): A Modest Proposal

Race has become a cover for all kinds of perversity in America. Rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, are taking steps to secure the suspension of the Constitution and the abolition of due process of law because the Grand Jury’s decision to render “No Bill” in regard to Officer Darren Wilson shows that “it is OK to shoot black men in America” as more than one incendiary commentator has written.

The problem is that the police shoot EVERY color of man, woman, and child in America (and quite a few animals).  The problem is that American police are all armed to the teeth and many seem to believe they have the right to shoot absolutely everybody, anytime. The problem is that the police are armed and American citizens (typically) are not.  This must end.  The word “Police” has a very different etymological origin and history from the French “Gendarmes”—but the French word (etymologically “gens d’armes” replacing earlier “hommes d’armes” ) encapsulates the concept of “armed people” against “unarmed people.”  The English word “Police” most likely came to England with the Spanish Inquisitorial advisers and counselors brought into the Tudor Realm with Catherine of Aragon, mother of “Bloody Mary.”  “Policia” is the Spanish word, related to German “Politzei” which traces to the reign of Charles V, King of Spain and Hapsburg Emperor or Germany who succeeded King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

I am writing to propose to you that the shooting in Ferguson is indeed all about inequality.  But the inequality that I perceive is political and functional, not racial.  Black Americans, Hispanics, and (at least some) Whites are all being deceived into the notion that power is based on race in America.  Power is based on control over weapons, and the legitimate use of the same.

And the solution is really quite simple: we must abolish, now and forever, both the concept and the function of a specialized branch of government called “the Police.”  So this is my modest proposal: ARM THE PEOPLE, ABOLISH ALL POLICE FORCES, or at least disarm them and deprive them of any special authority over life, liberty, and property. “Police” units should be limited

The modern American and (really worldwide) concept of the “Police” embody and reflect the Anthropological and Cultural Evolutionary formulary notion that “The State” comes into existence only when there is a “monopoly of legitimate violence”. [“States” in the Anthropological, Cultural Evolutionary {i.e. “Prehistoric”} Scheme of things replaced tribes, chiefdoms {= Post-Mosaic, Biblical “Judges”}, and all other “pre-state” political forms of less elaborately evolved, less severe socio-functional integration].

The modern English word “Police” does not predate the reign of Henry VIII in England and Wales.  Etymologically, the concept of “the Police” equates with Latin “Polis” (= city) and “Policy” (lower level law, norms with official sanction slightly more formal than mere customs or practices, but not nearly so formalized as statutes).  

To abolish Inequality in America, as I wrote above: we must absolutely, positively, now and forever abolish the police.  People, to be free, must be “self-policing”.  The question here is: can the state exist without Police?  Or will we sink into the anarchy of the Scottish Clans and the Vikings without police forces?  (OK, were Scottish Clans and Viking tribes really “lawless?”  Were the pre-Colombian Indian Tribes of the Americas really “lawless”?  Were the Israelites “Lawless” when ruled by “Judges” before the appointment of Kings under Saul, Samuel, David, and Solomon).

OR, can (popularly administered, i.e. “community based”, egalitarian) LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW ALONE determine what violence is legitimate or not?  Are people capable of self-government in a complex society?  I think they are, although certain “old-fashioned” norms should perhaps be restored.

The police are increasingly an unqualified abomination all over America because they are militarized, and show increasing disregard for human (and animal) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The structural apex of the modern United States as a “Police Nation” (as the late great South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond decried, denounced and predicted in his “Dixiecrat” Southern Democratic breakaway platform in 1948) took shape (appropriately enough) formed by the hands and minds of rulers with truly Royal Blood. The seeds of the transformation to a police society planted under Abraham Lincoln and they sprouted over the next decades.  But the apical hierarchy of a “Police Nation” was only set, in 1908, when the Republican “Progressive” President, Theodore Roosevelt’s, Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte created the FBI.  

The creation of the FBI, destined to be ruled by a despotic monarch of sorts, J.Edgar Hoover, for 48 years from 1924-1972, was a truly royal event because Attorney General Charles Joseph was the grandson of Jerome Bonaparte, who in turn was the youngest brother of Napoleon the Great, Emperor of the French.  Jerome Bonaparte’s title was King of Westphalia, 1807-1814, a German “puppet State” under the Bonapartist transformation of Europe following the French Revolution.  “Gens d’Armes” were a key element of the Bonapartist bureaucracy, who far exceeded the number and power of any such royal agents who had ever existed among the “oppressive” Bourbon monarchs of the previous millenium since Charlemagne.  

Twenty five years later, at the “accession” of the (at that time) most unconstitutional and anti-Democratic American “King” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the police state already had widespread public acceptance.  The “police” everywhere became a major instrument of governmental “welfare”, with the creation of hundred or more different Federal “Policy Enforcement” (i.e. “Policing”) agencies which coordinated with state and local “Police” in the regulation of the economy and every day life, which most Americans now accept as “normal” and take for granted.

As much as I dislike the “Progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt or the “New Deal” Socialism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it cannot be said that people lack the power to “will themselves into socialism” through democratic process, or that socialism and constitutional government are entirely, wholly, incompatible—although socialist restrictions on the rights to contract freely and own property “in fee simple absolute” inevitably conflict with the American Constitution of 1787, as amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791 and even by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.  

I cannot say the same of Police Power.  Putting guns in the hands of a few people against the many is absolutely, positively inimical to the American way of life.  

Let us think for a moment about other privileges which have defined politically and social powerful classes: such as the right to ride horses.  First Latin Equites, then French Chevaliers and Spanish Caballeros all designate and refer to this special technology or mode of transportation which for nearly 4000 years defined the military elite of society (Georges Dumézil’s “Second Function”—physical force, which in the United States Constitution found expression in Article II, the Executive Branch).  

Among the Spanish Colonial Elites in the New World, from California and New Mexico to Southernmost Chile and Patagonia, the rights to ride a horse and carry firearms were limited to the Hidalgos of the Criollos (“Creole”) or Peninsular (Spanish born) aristocracy.  Indians, in the 18th Century, were required to apply for special permission to acquire either “elite” technology (horses or guns).  Such applications for permission were “badges and incidents” of subservient status as conquered people.  

Similarly, in the modern US, armored motor vehicles and automatic weapons are restricted by law to the police.  

“We the people” are now the subservient status and conquered people in our own nation.  

So we should all support the Ferguson Rioters, insofar as their complaints can be construed as an objection to police power, but we must eschew and ignore the racial rhetoric, and focus on the real problem, which is the State’s Monopoly of Legitimate Violence. Our position must be that ALL forms of monopoly are inimical to Constitutional Government.