Two Supreme Ct. Decisions the Anti-Gunners Don't Want You to See

by Carl F. Worden

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45). Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.


DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED

 
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
 
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
 
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."


The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917



 






Kansas Ethics Head Hazlett in Ethics Trouble Himself

by Mary Kay Culp, KFL Executive Director

Today's KFL blog (read it HERE) examines how the states' legal ethics head, Stan Hazlett, went after one attorney's license, allegedly breaking the rules and repeatedly lying! He now faces his own set of ethics charges. Interestingly, that attorney also had a connection to abortion. Because of his actions it was revealed in a story in the Topeka Capitol Journal that sexual abuse was going on at the women's correction center in Topeka, with abortion being used to hide it!

This strongly echoes the ongoing saga of former attorney General, Phill Kline who Hazlett is also going after. 

Three weeks ago, anti- Kline "tweets" were going on the internet against Phill Kline, at his ethics hearing in the Supreme Court. After complaining about the source of the derisive comments--an appellate court law clerk (who helps the justices write their rulings)--Kline's attorney issued a letter to Hazlett. The letter is HERE. Many substantive charges are made, and Hazlett is asked to release more materials.

Note: Donate to Kline's defense at https://www.lifeissues.org/amistad/donate/index.html

The question remains why Hazlett steadfastly dogged Kline after two investigative bodies and a Wichita judge supported his actions.

Is it because of the fact that Hazlett works for the Kansas Supreme Court, whose member, Justice Carol Beier, has a recognized dislike of Mr. Kline? That assertion is not wholly ours. A December 2008 Supreme Court ruling regarding Kline found he did nothing wrong and yet Beier, who wrote the opinion, devoted 18 pages to denigrate him. The entire ruling written by Beier was so out of the ordinary, that the chief justice at the time, Kay McFarland said this, as part of her separate comments:

" …It appears to me that the majority invokes our extraordinary inherent power to sanction simply to provide a platform from which it can denigrate Kline for actions that it cannot find to have been in violation of any law and to heap scorn upon him for his attitude and behavior that does not rise to the level of contempt. This is the very antithesis of "restraint and discretion" and is not an appropriate exercise of our inherent power.”

Adding:

“I believe it is inappropriate to set forth, as if to threaten [Kline] with, the various penalties that could be imposed if some past or future hypothetical misconduct should "come to light" at a later date….This vague statement seems to anticipate and encompass the discovery of additional past or future misconduct.”

It is difficult not to wonder if there was some tipoff to Beier or her staff (especially as more "bad tweets"have been uncovered) about a CD with work product from then-former KS AG Kline's staff that supposedly appeared "mysteriously" on the desks of abortion attorneys just weeks earlier and that it supposedly contained damning information.  It didn't although they have tried during Kline's ethics allegations journey to make something of it. The origin of the CD, and its transfer to abortion attorneys has never been determined, but certainly needs to be. 

There are other issues related to Kansas corruption that we are working on because they too demand further exploration and action, and we will be reporting on them soon--especially the destruction of evidence related to the Planned Parenthood charges that have all now been dropped by Johnson County DA Steve Howe. 

Again, read the KFL blog article (here) about another Kansas attorney who Hazlett pursued who is fighting back allegedly with facts that proved Hazlett is not above lying, and note the similarities to how Hazlett has treated and continues to treat Phill Kline! Also, again, please read the great letter Kline's attorney Condit has written to Hazlett HERE.  




Trafficking in human beings for removal of organs and forced commercial surrogacy

by The National Rapporteur


National Rapporteur on trafficking in Human Beings and forced commercial surrogacy. In the report, the Rapporteur focuses on current developments in the field of organ donation and the forced removal of organs and  for the first time argues that forced commercial surrogacy could fall within the scope of human trafficking. The report can be downloaded using the link at the bottom of this page.

Organ removal

There are no indications of a high incidence of trafficking in human beings for the removal of organs (sometimes referred to as ‘organ harvesting’) within the Netherlands. Neither do Dutch citizens appear to be involved in this crime abroad often. Nevertheless, the Rapporteur calls for watchfulness: "Considering the continuous severe shortage of organ donors, growing globalisation and interconnectedness as a result of the Internet, we have to be on the alert. Manifestations of trafficking in human beings we are witnessing in other countries, will sooner or later affect us too. For that we have to be prepared. The Rapporteur has called on the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport to take the lead in recording the scale and nature of organ trafficking and organ tourism. 

The Netherlands are experiencing a shortage of organ donors. Live organ donations are rare, and must be voluntary and non-commercial. Because of the severe shortage of organs, patients seem to be willing to pay for them. There are calls from various quarters for financial incentives for organ donation. A number of points need to be considered in this context. Financial incentives could alleviate the shortage of organs and, hence the chance of human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. However, financial incentives for organ donation would also make organ donation a commercial activity and create a market for organs, which would, in itself, carry the risk of human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. That risk could be avoided by offering donors an exemption from health insurance premiums rather than a direct monetary reward. 

Trafficking in organs and human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs are not constrained by national borders. It is important for states to try to reach new joint solutions and

where possible, coordinate policies and strategies with respect to organ donation, trafficking in organs and human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. 

Forced commercial surrogacy 

In addition to the trade in these ‘classical organs’, a market is also growing for other parts of the body. One such market is the demand for surrogate mothers. Commercial surrogacy is increasingly common, partly as a result of developments like the Internet, the globalisation of society and advances in procreation techniques. For the first time Dutch National Rapporteur Corinne Dettmeijer studied the relationship between forced commercial surrogacy and trafficking in human beings. Forced surrogacy is not explicitly included in the Dutch Criminal Code as a form of trafficking. It can be argued that, under certain circumstances, surrogacy could constitute exploitation in the sense of forced services. An important indication of exploitation would be if other persons than the woman carrying the child, such as an intermediary or a spouse, earn money out of the surrogacy and if the financial risks and health risks are borne entirely or largely by the surrogate mother.

 The Netherlands have strict laws about surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy (receiving payment for carrying someone else's child) is not allowed. National policy is aimed at preventing the spread of commercial surrogacy, and accordingly, behaviour that promotes supply and demand in relation to surrogacy has been made a criminal offense. Surrogacy itself is not a criminal offence. In some other countries, such as the United States, India and Ukraine, commercial surrogacy is allowed.

 Intermediary companies operate in the international ˜baby market"™, bringing together donors, parents, surrogate mothers and fertility clinics and making the legal arrangements. The internet, globalisation and advances in procreation techniques bring services abroad within reach of Dutch couples who wish to become parents through surrogacy. But there is a risk there: the rights of surrogate mothers are not respected in all countries. When it comes to commercial surrogacy, the question is to what extent the surrogate mothers are acting voluntarily. As with trafficking in organs, social determinants such as poverty, debt, a vulnerable social position and illiteracy can force a woman to become a surrogate mother. “No one wants to contribute to the phenomenon that women are being exploited to have children. The Dutch government should inform prospective parents about this risk," says the Dutch National Rapporteur.

 
More information:


Trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal of organs and forced commercial surrogacy (2012) Report | 04-12-2012 | pdf-document, 0.25 MB



Read more: http://patrioteponym.webnode.com/news/trafficking-in-human-beings-for-the-purpose-of-the-removal-of-organs-and-forced-commercial-surrogacy/