Motives for Government Retaliation

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on August 01, 1998 at 10:51:14:

Here are a few working, active hypotheses
for the systematic retaliation which
this author has experienced in recent years:

1. The truth about government rackets is
not only embarrassing to the guilty parties;
it also creates rather specific liabilities
for those parties, once the corresponding
crimes are correctly documented and served.
The Petition Clause is at issue here.

2. Those very same parties are attempting to
send a message to anyone else who might
entertain similar plans, in order to "chill"
comparable complaints from other victims.
A chilling effect will nullify any law,
absent a compelling state interest.

3. Government by fear becomes the only
practical policy, when genuine criminals
have seized positions of power for their
own advantage. This is better known as
an extortion racket, and it is a very
serious crime, particularly when it is
done under "color of law" via conspiracy.
Confer at "conspiracy" in 18 U.S.C. 241
(not to be confused with the BIG Conspiracy).

4. Killing the messenger may have been
recognized as a juvenile response
as early as ancient Greece, but this
poor response continues to the present,
particularly in public school graduates
and broadcast media addicts.

5. Critical thinking is a learned skill,
which most Americans are never given
the opportunity to learn and develop.
Test this statement by asking the next
ten people the meaning of "due process
of law" and its origin. Another test
is to ask people to list the effects
of distilled water on the human body.

6. Fascism always cloaks itself with an
immense amount of respectability, but
its true intentions are eventually
made manifest. Again, test this statement
by asking the next ten people if Janet Reno
obtained a death warrant for the Children
of Waco. Then ask then if it was even
possible for Janet Reno to do so!

7. Lex non cogit impossibilia.
Law does not recognize impossibilities.

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]