May Day: The High-Holy Day for Communists Everywhere.

May 1^st, 2012

On this May Day, the high-holy day for communists everywhere, it is worth a moment to catalogue an apparent and recent communist success story.  For the communists and would be communists among us domestically (see: LAUSD: How Many Likely Communist/Socialist Revolutionaries Are Teaching Kids In Your Schools At Tax-Payer Expense? ), and of course relevant to the communist and would-be communists residing on our southern border and their difficulties (see: No, No, Mi Amigo! No, Presidente Calderone…, You Should Be Thanking Arizona, Not Pointing Accusatory Fingers of Blame!!! ), it seems to be worth one’s time to take note of this recent communist success story. 

It has been widely reported yesterday evening that a Chinese political dissenter and human rights activist/lawyer in mainland communist China, Chen Guangcheng's  – a dissenter who had been under guarded house arrest in mainland china for almost two years -  has escaped.  It is said that the dissenter currently is being given refuge by a U.S. Embassy concern in mainland China.  (Note: Chinese Dissident Chen Guangcheng's Daring Escape, http://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-dissident-chen-guangchengs-daring-escape/story?id=16241439.)  His escape is even more remarkable when noting the fact that he is blind, was guarded by a force of 100 soldiers, and in light of the reported fact that he was repeatedly beaten by his guards during his captivity.

Of course, as average Americans we have no verification of the real truth of the matter except for what is reported and we are well aware that there surely exists no right to freedom of the press in mainland communist China.  Nevertheless, if the communist Chinese government was, in deed, gracious enough to allow the dissenter to go free or if in fact he did escape, such seems beneficial and a success for the followers of the communist dogma everywhere – as well as also being a cause for hope for the remainder of us who believe that freedom of thought and expression is far more important than the proliferation of a failed fascist dogma and its associated form of government.  Moreover, such an escape also lends itself to the benefit of the untold numbers of other Chinese dissenters that sit neglected in Chinese prisons throughout that nation.

Might I suggest to our U.S. government:  DON’T RETURN CHEN GUANGCHENG TO THE CUSTODY OF THE FACIST COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT IN MAINLAND CHINA!!  It would likely be murder if you were to return him to the fascist communists!

Let’s see…: 

Typically widespread incarceration for those who oppose the failed communistic, repressive, and facist dogma that rules a modern nation?  Boy there’s a reason to get out and celebrate on this May Day.  (Not!)  And such stories of oppression seem typical with every example of communistic governments in recent world history.  In reality, I see no cause for celebration nor any cause for proliferation of a system of government which appears only worthy for the nearest trash bin.  It is rather humorous, though, how our domestic communists have apparently attempted to intertwine themselves with the ‘Occupy Wall Street movement’ and now represent themselves as part of the “99%.”

Given all the recent cheery developments regarding the history of communist governments around the world, the only circumstances under which the high-holy communist day could have greater reason for celebration is if Chairman Mao, himself, was still alive to come and join in our American May Day festivals across the nation; maybe as sort of a Grand Marshall of the proceedings, huh?  A final point - if necessary, to the modern domestic communists and would-be communists who don’t know (or are too young to know) who Chairman Mao was:  it's time for you to start a worthwhile learning process, and the sooner the better.  Then again, maybe you could just return south of the border and shout for a communist state there?

AVT

BOYCOTT PRODUCTS FROM COMMUNIST CHINA!!!

Mainland/Communist China Should Become Part of Taiwan! Taiwan Should Not Become Part of Mainland China!

Jessamine.

A Just Government Fears Not…

I Became Aware Today!

April 30^th, 2012

Today, I became aware of the injury – at 0730 Pacific Standard Time.  Should anyone care and if it’s even relevant, the clock starts ticking now! 

I hope to soon seek/ request the name of your preferred champion/ agent/ Agency.  Tolling statutes and the likes will be irrelevant, because the injury continues to accrue.  For your lawful review in a suitable venue, I will display this unexplained theory with a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ and possibly in accordance with a ‘clear and convincing’ standard as well.  Either standard should work, I am assuming, because in the opposite corner stands a party that will be defending negligence, recklessness, and even most-likely malice. 

‘But for’ your outrageous and non-discretionary actions/ ministerial duties…  this foreseeable and extreme happenstance would not have transpired.  As such appears ripe, the time to review this matter is likely approaching.  Should you choose not to cower behind your typical cloak – or should you be barred from so doing, I look forward to reviewing and debating this on-going situation as a matter of Law at the Superior location of your choosing.

Fieri facias.

/s/ Adam Trotter (4/30/12)


PS.  Btw, if you were reading to see if I had become aware of another sort of revelation, I believe I may have already had that enlightenment some time ago.  (If interested, start reading about here: The ‘Captain’ Likes Trucks !     and browse.)

Relevant to: The Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596.

The Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596.

From: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273 (U.S. 1964)
(Justice Powell) (Lexis):

"…
If neither factual error nor defamatory content suffices to remove the constitutional shield from criticism of official conduct, the combination of the two elements is no less inadequate. This is the lesson to be drawn from the great controversy over the Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596, which first crystallized a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment. See Levy, Legacy of Suppression (1960), at 258 et seq.; Smith, Freedom's Fetters (1956), at 426, 431, and passim. That statute made it a crime, punishable by a $ 5,000 fine and five years in prison, "if any person shall write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious [*274] writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress . . . , or the President . . . , with intent to defame . . . or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States." The Act allowed the defendant the defense of truth, and provided that the jury were to be judges both of the law and the facts. Despite these qualifications, the Act was vigorously condemned as unconstitutional in an attack joined in by Jefferson and Madison. In the famous Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the General Assembly of Virginia resolved that it

"doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the 'Alien and Sedition Acts,' passed at the last session of Congress . . . . [The Sedition Act] exercises . . . a power not delegated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto -- a power which, more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right." 4 Elliot's Debates, supra, pp. 553-554.

Madison prepared the Report in support of the protest. His premise was that the Constitution created a form of government under which "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The structure of the government dispersed power in reflection of the people's distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels. This form of government was "altogether different" from the British form, under which the Crown was sovereign and the people were subjects. "Is [*275] it not natural and necessary, under such different circumstances," he asked, "that a different degree of freedom in the use of the press should be contemplated?" Id., pp. 569-570. Earlier, in a debate in the House of Representatives, Madison had said: "If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people." 4 Annals of Congress, p. 934 (1794). Of the exercise of that power by the press, his Report said: "In every state, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men, of every description, which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing the freedom of the press has stood; on this foundation it yet stands . . . ." 4 Elliot's Debates, supra, p. 570. The right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials was thus, in Madison's view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government. (FN15)

[*276] Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, (FN16) the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. Fines levied in its prosecution were repaid by Act of Congress on the ground that it was unconstitutional. See, e. g., Act of July 4, 1840, c. 45, 6 Stat. 802, accompanied by H. R. Rep. No. 86, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. (1840). Calhoun, reporting to the Senate on February 4, 1836, assumed that its invalidity was a matter "which no one now doubts." Report with Senate bill No. 122, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. Jefferson, as President, pardoned those who had been convicted and sentenced under the Act and remitted their fines, stating: "I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law, because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image." Letter to Mrs. Adams, July 22, 1804, 4 Jefferson's Works (Washington ed.), pp. 555, 556. The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288-289; Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 47. See also Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed., Carrington, 1927), pp. 899-900; Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1942), pp. 27-28. These views reflect a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.


FOOTNOTES

15 The Report on the Virginia Resolutions further stated:

"It is manifestly impossible to punish the intent to bring those who administer the government into disrepute or contempt, without striking at the right of freely discussing public characters and measures; . . . which, again, is equivalent to a protection of those who administer the government, if they should at any time deserve the contempt or hatred of the people, against being exposed to it, by free animadversions on their characters and conduct. Nor can there be a doubt . . . that a government thus intrenched in penal statutes against the just and natural effects of a culpable administration, will easily evade the responsibility which is essential to a faithful discharge of its duty.

"Let it be recollected, lastly, that the right of electing the members of the government constitutes more particularly the essence of a free and responsible government. The value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for public trust, and on the equal freedom, consequently, of examining and discussing these merits and demerits of the candidates respectively." 4 Elliot's Debates, supra, p. 575.

16 The Act expired by its terms in 1801.
..."



AVT (March, 2012)


See also:
11-11-11 Day, Repeal the Eleventh Amendment, I say!

and,
A Just Government Fears Not…

Mexico City’s Earthquake Early Warning System Likely Saved Lives Today!

See:
Mexico City’s Earthquake Early Warning System Likely Saved Lives Today!
AVT

They told me: ‘Whatever you do , Adam, Don’t go to Needle Park!’

As one that has always been fascinated with urban centers and the study thereof, and being of a non-diminutive stature (physically) as well as knowing no real fear - at the time, needless to say, my youthful curiosity was piqued when I was advised to stay clear of Zurich’s Needle Park during an early mid-1990s journey to Switzerland. I was told in no-uncertain-terms by all those seemingly in the know, to ‘stay well clear of Needle Park,’ when in Zurich.

So..., what did I do? Of course..., I had to go take a gander at Needle Park! Armed only with my somewhat youthful ignorance… (To be continued when I have some more time.)

AVT
(March, 2012)

April 22nd, 2016 (Addendum):

Several years ago when I traveled to Zurich, Switzerland for business and against warnings, I went to view Zurich’s Needle Park.  For starters, the City of Zurich appeared almost immaculately clean, by U.S. standards at the time.  Moreover, the majority of the Swiss people in the City of Zurich did not seem as very imposing figures either.  As I had been living and working in the greater Philadelphia area for several years at that point in time, I thought, how bad can this Needle Park place really be?  So, I drove the little Opel rental car by the park and looked down into it. 

It was, like…, one of the scariest places I’ve ever seen!  Those folks/heroin-addicts in the park appeared so strung-out and desperate that they would likely take the eyeglasses off someone’s face if they could get any bit of money for those stolen eyeglasses.  To have large numbers of them congregating there at the park during any given time of day struck me as quite common-place for the park as well.  Needless to say, I didn’t get out of the car and the thought of seeing that place again during my visit to Zurich never again crossed my mind – not once! 

Now that Switzerland has a state-sponsored heroin program, however, according to the news reports, people walk their dogs and jog where Needle Park had previously existed.  No longer does any fear of crime prevent the mainstream and law-abiding populace from enjoying the park.

 

 

I can’t help but to forever wonder: How much would such a decrease in heroin/drug-related crime be worth to our society?  No more dead cops.  No more dead citizens or dead babies due to stray bullets from drug-dealers fighting each other in the streets.  

To our nation’s leaders, I say:  Lead or get out of the way!  Throw in the towel on the drug war, ‘cause I, for one, am tired of paying for it!!!  Where have the nation’s decades-long drug policies left us?  How much money and what other external costs have been nearly wasted to those ends to date?

AVT

See:

SWISS HEROIN-ASSISTED TREATMENT 1994- 2016: SUMMARY

http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/resources/swiss-heroin-assisted-treatment-1994-2009-summary/

(Believe it or not, there’s actually more to this story which took place after I returned to Philadelphia.  Maybe I'll write some more about it, before too long.)

Sovereign Citizen Movement and the L.A. Times Article.

Feb. 25th, 2012

After reading an article in yesterday’s (Friday’s) Los Angeles Times about the ‘sovereign citizen movement,’ I decided to blog and chime in with my thoughts on any such movement and the newspaper’s condemnations thereof. The article, “Contempt for the law,” by Brian Bennett, Feb. 24th 2012, page A1, continues on page A15 under the heading “ ‘Citizens’ hold themselves above the law.” (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/nation/la-na-terror-cop-killers-20120224) Given the history of the printed source of the article (The Los Angeles Times), this newspaper’s weakly masked political leanings typically displayed in its articles, and the reality of modern-day political tactics, I would tend to doubt much of the conclusions stated in this article. Furthermore, I would tend to doubt these conclusions regardless of the source. Because, in a nutshell, for any group to call for a strict interpretation of the U.S. Federal Constitution should not qualify that group as 'domestic terrorists.'

To begin with, the article speaks of how the Sovereign Citizen movement is now classified as a domestic terrorist organization as a result of “…two recent unpublished studies [wherein] the Homeland Security Department and the National Counter-terrorism Center ranked the sovereign citizen movement as a major threat along with islamic extremists and white supremacists.” The article also spoke of six police officers having been killed as a result of clashes with members of the movement. The movement is credited in the article as having 100,000+ members.

I don’t know a great deal about the Sovereign Citizen movement; but from what I know of it, the members don’t consider themselves to be above the law. From what I have been told, members of the Sovereign Citizen movement typically and exclusively recognize the U.S. Federal Constitution as the only law of the land – which could be a valid argument. They often contend that the Constitution and the Founding Fathers of the nation intended the inhabitants of the United States of America to be as sovereigns (or kings). As such, many laws outside the Constitution would therefore be more-or-less unjust. However, what I consider to be the Sovereign Citizen-type movement could ultimately be different from that which is addressed in the article – as I have never heard of any of the ‘Sovereigns’ being violent. So, there could exist varying degrees of this movement and varying degrees of tactics employed by the different elements of any such group, one would have to suppose.


Additionally, as I understand, the Sovereign Citizen movement takes issue with the current tax and revenue generating arms of the government – including as an example The Federal Reserve System – as it would appear that such may not have been authorized by the Constitution either. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, the Sovereign Citizens might have a valid argument concerning the applicability of the Constitution in addition to their views leaning towards the possible absurdity of many other 'laws.' (See: Thomas Jefferson and the Federal Reserve System. See also: 11-11-11 Day, Repeal the Eleventh Amendment, I say! )


Similar to the Anti-Wall Street protesters and somewhat in-line with the Tea Party folks, the Sovereign Citizen movement, from my limited knowledge, seems to speak of how the nation’s banks appear to control OUR government and of how OUR government seems to consistently only endeavor for the banks and financial industries. And, as OUR government and the value of OUR currency continually display, there has been no significant change concerning the ‘policy regime’ of the Federal Reserve System in recent decades other than to implement policies that were to the apparent further detriment of the American people – regardless of any advertised or superficial calls for ‘change’ by any recently elected politician. The grass-roots movements, then, seem well-justified in illuminating this matter for the apparently blind (or banker-supported) politicians. To be clear, as an example, the Federal Reserve System is a private banking cartel that has absolute control over the U.S. nation’s money supply – which would seem unconstitutional. Clearly, the Federal Reserve System maintains no fiduciary responsibility to any entity other than itself. (If you don’t believe me, try and find something to contradict such a statement in the Fed’s website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/ and http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm ). (See also: Concerning the Federal Reserve System and Fiduciary Responsibility…. , and, Allow the Federal Government to Control America’s Currency, and, Definition of Terms: "Shred The Fed".)


WE are all aware of the typical propaganda efforts long disseminated from our governments regarding any group or individual opposed to the power structure as it currently exists. Such a gathered opposition to seated government officials and opposition to the current affairs of government would likely then have their names included on some fascist-type government list of those to be ‘black-listed.’ Given the often un-forthright and self-centered nature of OUR government entities, agencies, and officials, should the government types label a group as one to be avoided appears to this blogger as more of an unofficial endorsement that those blacklisted folks are probably worth hearing to some extent. In other words, it is difficult to believe OUR government (and press) about anything stated regarding groups of which the government does not approve. (See: “No-Fly List,” Safeguard or Political Weapon? And, Is the Nation Under Siege? Could We Trust the Nation’s Press to Tell Us? See also: Military Weapon Causes Annual Bird Kill From Arkansas Sky?)


The point of this blog entry is to highlight that when a coalition of ‘citizens’ (with 100,000+ members) questions the validity of the status quo of OUR government and the validity of the current - and often apparently dysfunctional - political power structure by way of a lawfully posed question, it seems illogical that such a commonly-held viewpoint/question necessarily makes that group ‘terroristic’ in nature. To call for the return of the Constitution as the ultimate - if not the only - law of the land is not terrorism; regardless of the extent to which the group demanding such is despised within the halls of OUR bloated and constitutionally-challenged government(s). As an example, there is nothing in the Constitution which might allow for the control of the nation’s money supply to be given to a non-government entity such as the Federal Reserve. Yet, our government has allowed such a situation to continue for the better part of a century. Then, to question such an unconstitutional enumeration of power to control the nation’s money supply does not appear as terroristic; at least not in my opinion. To the contrary, when an often self-serving national government that appears to work mostly (if not exclusively) for the financial industries (and the likes) is faced with a growing citizen-based group that opposes (among other things) the current and arguably unconstitutional situation whereby a banking cartel controls the nation’s money supply as well as the cartel’s control of the government, for the government to label such a group as terroristic realistically appears more as an endorsement of the likely just cause championed by any such group and therefore the group may be worth hearing.


IN the end, I can only wonder, by my voicing my opinion on matters such as these and by possibly displaying any sympathy or support for any such “Sovereign Citizen Movement” as I understand any such movement, would such an opinion make me a ‘domestic terrorist” as well? (See: Prepare to Defend Yourself from the Thought Police. And, The Thought Police Might Be on the Move. ) I don’t think I even want to know what the likely answer is to such a question. Regardless, A Just Government Fears Not…


Adam Trotter / AVT


See: 

Relevant to: The Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596.

"Madison prepared the Report in support of the protest. His premise was that the Constitution created a form of government under which "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The structure of the government dispersed power in reflection of the people's distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels." (Justice Powell,

From: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273 (U.S. 1964) (Lexis))

Res ipsa loquitur, vi et armis, fieri facias.

See:

http://poetrybyadamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2012/02/res-ipsa-loquitur-vi-et-armis-fieri.html

AVT