TAC Home

Connect

questions/feedback

media contact

newsletter

speaker
request

Get Involved

Volunteer

TAC
Chapters

Model Legislation

Liberty
Preservation Act: Nullify “Indefinite Detention”

2nd
Amendment Preservation

Hemp
Freedom Act

Drones:
Privacy Protection Act

Nullify
Obamacare in 4 Steps

Constitutional
Tender

Defend
the Guard

Travel
Freedom Act

Intrastate
Commerce Act

Environment
Protection Act

Speakers for your
Event

Tenther Radio

About

Concordia

Privacy

Terms

Our Logo

The
Tenth

The
Team

Store

Store Home

View
Cart

My
Account

Help

Navigation

Tenth
Amendment Center Concordia res Parvae
Crescunt

DONATE

Legislative
Tracking

Tenther
Gifts

Tenther
Radio

Become
a Member

Tenther
Blog

NDAA: Open Season for the Police State

By Jim
Babka on January 4,
2012 in Current
Events, Featured, Liberty, Tenther
Rants 484

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 7:08 — 6.5MB)

via DownsizeDC

How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on
Americans

Congress just passed, and the President just signed, a bill that gives legal
authority to the President to kidnap and perpetually imprison persons, including
American citizens, without the benefit of due process.

Members of Congress, in the days leading up to the vote, tried to assure
their constituents that they have nothing to fear — that the bill doesn’t apply
to Americans.

Some were lying. Most were deceived.

Now, I don’t want to imply that Barack Obama plans to sweep up every one of
his critics (or even a select few) because of statements they’ve uttered
publicly. That is overstatement. The law doesn’t permit that. But consider the
following scenario…

You object to the way the Federal Leviathan State is run. You gather, every
other Tuesday, with others who share your values. We’ll call your fictional
group the Constitution League (CL).

One night, a new fellow shows up. He’s frustrated and outspoken. He complains
that the time for meetings is over. Something must be done — something that will
“get their attention.” You’re uncomfortable with his remarks but unsure how to
respond.

You hope he never returns, and he doesn’t.

What you don’t know, until months later, is that one of our CL colleagues,
the chapter Vice President, followed the vocal man out to the parking lot. The
two exchanged email addresses and phone numbers. Then, your local VP reached out
to a third man, a member of a CL chapter in the nearest big city. The three met
regularly. They plotted and executed their own terrorist plot on a U.S.
Government facility.

Now, your group meeting was the place they met. The Vice President used his
CL email account. CL is all over the news. CL is now, for all intents and
purposes, a terrorist group.

And you? Well, you’ve donated to the terrorist organization. You’ve
participated in its meetings. The night this angry man walked in, you didn’t
call the authorities.

* Can the President have the military come and arrest you? Yes!
* Can he
(or she) send you to a military tribunal for trial or just hold you indefinitely
in a military facility, without charges? Yes!

Even the bill co-sponsor, Senator McCain, appears to agree with this
assessment. Senator Rand Paul asked John McCain, on the Senate floor, “…under
the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared
an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?”
McCain responded, “I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY
ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America,
should not be allowed to continue the threat.” {Emphasis Added}

Wait a minute. Wasn’t there a provision in this bill that exempted Americans?

Despite what your Congressional office may have told you (if you called
during the debate over this bill) the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

The relevant sections of the bill are 1021 and 1022.

* Section 1021 asserts the President’s authority to arrest suspected (not
convicted) terrorists and gives him the option to choose whether or not they
even get a trial, and if so, what kind of trial.

* Section 1022 requires that a certain class of terrorist
get no trial. Instead they must be held in military prisons, for as long as this
President, or any future President desires.

SECTION 1021

Section 1021 is very expansive in its reach. It “includ[es] any person who
has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in
aid of such enemy forces.”

* Who is “any person?”
* What is a “belligerent act?”
* What is “direct
support?”

One could be safe in assuming these words mean whatever a creatively-minded
prosecutor, a flexible judge, and an ignorant jury define them to mean — EXCEPT
THAT, UNDER THIS ACT, ONE MIGHT NEVER GET AS FAR AS A COURT HEARING.

These terms will be defined by the bureaucrats in power.

They could be used against political opponents.

1021 has NO exceptions. There’s not even a hint of an exception. Remember,
that section gave the President the authority to arrest you and a set of options
on how you were to be handled. These choices are completely divorced from the
4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, as well as the Treason provisions of Article
III. The President’s new alternatives are…

1. Detention without trial by the military
2. Trial by a military
commission
3. Trial by some other court of the President’s choosing
4.
Shipping you off to a foreign jurisdiction (info
here)

SECTION 1022

1022 is a REQUIREMENT — a binding mandate upon the President. President Obama
threatened to veto the bill, but only because he feared 1022 would restrict his
power too much.
http://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-obama-for-backing-indefinite-detention-bill

This section is for your fellow CL members/plotters. Whereas, you got
snatched up for “support” or “aid” to the plot, they actually carried out an
attack, or as the section itself indicates…

“…participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or
attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Section 1022 requires the President to go with option #1
above — the other three options are off the table. In other words, no trial,
either in a civilian court or military tribunal.

In the final version of the bill, after a public storm started to erupt, the
title of the section was changed to indicate that it only applied to “foreign
al-Qaeda terrorists.” However, titles are not normally considered part of the
law but merely summary descriptions to the reader of a bill.

But this title is especially IRONIC, because it’s this section that includes
the so-called exemption for American citizens. Why would you need to exempt
American citizens from a section of law that applies to “foreign al-Qaeda
terrorists?”

The answer is because the section applies to any kind of “terrorist,”
domestic or foreign, no matter what the title says.

And here’s the so-called exemption, with the key word highlighted…

The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this
section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That means that military custody, without a trial, is mandated by law, but
that the President, at his discretion or by written policy, may issue a waiver
on the basis that a person is an American citizen.

If this provision was a true safeguard for American citizens, then the line
would’ve been written like this…

Military custody of citizens of the United States is still prohibited
under this act.

See the difference? It’s a requirement that can be waived at discretion, as
opposed to a prohibition.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Now, do you realize Congress has given the Federal State the power to use
military detention on its own citizens? And that they’ve made it possible to
wage a war on peaceful activists, if they can just incite someone in your group
to attempt something violent?

Don’t worry. It’s not like the FBI is busy infiltrating meetings, entrapping
some dullard into a plot, equipping and financing his efforts, and then claiming
credit for stopping another terrorist attack! Oh wait, that’s happened about 40
times since 9/11.

Thus, to complete our story, the angry man who showed up at the CL meeting
might’ve work for the FBI. And he duped two idiots in your group, who put you
and your fellow members in legal jeopardy.

This new law is that serious. President Obama has claimed he won’t use this
power. All that needs to happen now is a provocative incident. Then, all bets
are off. Since these nearly unlimited, un-constitutional powers are now law,
this President, or a future one, will be able to kidnap and disappear Americans.
It could very easily be open season for the police state.

—–

Jim Babka is the President of Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc.. DownsizeDC.org will
soon launch a campaign to repeal these sections from the law.

Copyright © 2012 by Jim Babka. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
gladly granted, provided full credit to the author, DownsizeDC.org and TenthAmendmentCenter.com is
given.

Share this:

Press This

Reddit

StumbleUpon

Tumblr

About Jim Babka
Jim Babka is the President of DownsizeDC.org. home of the Read the Bills
Act. At present, his team is building the Zero Aggression Project and Deny
Consent — new tools to transform the most important precincts and districts in
the country, the hearts and minds of the people. Copyright © 2012 by Jim Babka.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full
credit to the author, DownsizeDC.org
and TenthAmendmentCenter.com
is given.

View all posts by Jim
Babka →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we
will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in
the Constitution and freedom today!

Subscribe and Follow

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Related Posts:

Taking
Down Another Establishment Hack

Some
Clarification on ‘Integrity’

A
Tenther’s Marketing Plan

Confessions
of a Dangerous, Racist Fool?

Commerce
Power: “To Regulate,” not “Prohibit”

“We’re Right Because We Said
So!”

Another Treasure Hunt: Tracking Down Bits from the American Founding

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

484 Responses to NDAA: Open Season for the Police
State

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:23 am #

(12) That he assigned funding to the Healthcare Bill (impeachable)

Obamacare-legislative branch duty.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

(13) That he refused to enforce the US Constitution or existing laws
(impeachable)

illegal immigrant, and actually ordered to do the opposite of existing
laws.

Did not uphold and enforce US laws as required.

New Hampshire State Representative Harry Accornero has charged Obama with
treason for failing to uphold federal immigration law and allowing illegal
immigrants to not only remain in the country, but also to obtain work permits
via executive fiat. Accornero stated that Obama is “destroying the country.”
In a letter submitted to The Laconia Daily Sun today, Accornero said, “Any
President or member of congress who allows our borders to be violated by
illegals of any country

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it
stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the
Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not
corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has
he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have
done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks,
and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the
American people.

Took away states power

Taking care of foreign nations people before and above American citizens
when sworn to represent America and American citizens: The Republican in
charge of doling out foreign aid wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
expressing “grave concern” over cash payments to Pakistan and asked they stop.
Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, who chairs a subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee responsible for foreign aid, is singling out $190 million in
“assistance for flood victims who lost their homes” in Pakistan the day after
turning down American citizen assistance to those who lost 1000’s of homes due
to fire here in the US.

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:23 am #

(10) That he is, and has been; committing “conduct amounting to a gross
breach of trust or serious abuse of power” (impeachable)

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

It based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for
Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before
beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and
grounds for impeachment. The report concluded: “Not all presidential
misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because
impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated
only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form
and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office”

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Took away States power

Misapplication

Maladministration

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

He violated the law and the provisions of the Constitution by seizing
control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress.

Although his unlawful cronies in Congress granted him the authority after
the fact, his action to seize corporations was a violation of the law at the
time it was implemented. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed this
atrocity is no matter. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he articulated a key
principle of liberty–any government that willfully violates the rule of law
and encroaches on the rights of the people ceases to be a legitimate
government. This government has violated the provisions of the 5th Amendment
regarding due process and fair compensation at the very least.

(11) That he wrote legislation (impeachable)

(Obamacare), which is the duty of the legislative branch not the executive
branch within the three branches of our government.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:24 am #

(9) That he is denying American citizens and those legally allowed being
here their Constitutional Rights (impeachable)

NDAA

TSA at airports (“A citizen of the United States has a public right of
transit through the navigable airspace.” 49 US Code-Section 40103), bus
stations, train stations, on our roadways.

Patriot Act

First Amendment

Second Amendment

The Bill of Rights sets limits on the federal government, making clear it
has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit
traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people,
equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all
classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine
involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man
than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great
exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or
despotism.” The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

H.R.1955 and S.1959 included in President Obama’s January 21, 2009 Patriot
Acts (plural), that also included extension of President Bush’s Patriot Act
(singular)

The Legalization of the monitoring and censorship of all US Communications,
“Anyone Returning from the Wars is a potential Homegrown Domestic Terrorist”-
Guilty until proven innocent

US NORTHCOM in relation to the US Insurrection Act

Posse Comitatus Act

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Warrantless Searches

Warrantless Tracking of US Citizens

Warrantless spying on all the information that can be gathered in many
ways: cell phone, stuff made to spy on us, etc

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:24 am #

Retired USAF Col. Richard Niemela of Reston, Va. has been exposing the
federal monster for years. He told AFP: “It’s the surreptitious domination by
international globalists insidiously using unauthorized and illegal tactics to
render null and void those historic and unique powers of the sheriff.”

i. The US has actually been militarizing much of its (State) police
agencies. the US congress passed the PATRIOT Act, a sweeping expansion of
domestic and foreign intelligence-gathering capabilities. This legislation
gave the government the ability to easily search all forms of communication,
eased restrictions on foreign intelligence-gathering at home, gave itself
greater power to monitor financial transactions and created entirely new
categories of domestic terrorism to which the PATRIOT Act’s expanded powers to
police could be applied. It was one of the greatest expansions of government
police power in history, an expansion which, after some tweaking, has been
mostly validated by the congress and reaffirmed by the courts.

President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security to “develop and
coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure
the United States from terrorist threats or attacks” a week after PATRIOT Act
was passed. Then a year later, the Department of Homeland Security was
established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.Today Department of Homeland
Security is the third-largest government agency, after the departments of
defense and veterans’ affairs. Not including the billions the federal
government spent on its own agencies, it has also disbursed many billions more
to various state and local police agencies, ostensibly for the purpose of
fighting the terrorist threat. DHS created new surveillance opportunities for
non-terrorist activity. In one notorious case from 2006, it was revealed that
Homeland Security had given the remote Alaskan village of Dillingham
(population 2,400) $202,000 to purchase surveillance cameras in order to track
alleged terrorist activity. Dillingham was not on any known terrorist’s target
list, so the only people the surveillance cameras were watching were the
citizens. But surveillance wasn’t the end of it.As reported by Radley Balko in
the Huffington Post, a Pentagon program – started in the 1980s – to give
military equipment to local police escalated in the 2000s, with even
university campus police receiving everything from M-16s to armored personnel
carriers. Balko quoted one county sheriff saying that he’d use his new
Homeland Security-funded SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too … just a
multitude of other things”.All over the country, police switched out their
traditional uniforms for Battle Dress Uniforms, dubbed by one retired
policeman in the Washington Post as “commando-chic” regalia.Former San Jose
chief of police Joseph McNamara raised these alarms as early as 2006 in the
wake of the Sean Bell shooting in New York. He pointed out that the effects of
the drug war and 9/11 had led to “an emphasis on ‘officer safety’ where
paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older
culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or
stabbed”.In the name of “officer safety”, the Taser became a common tool in
everyday policing, deployed with little knowledge of the effects, and a
tendency to Taser first and ask questions later. But over the course of the
past decade, the body count grew as it became more and more obvious that
tasers were sometimes as deadly as the guns they purported to replace.’Pain
compliance’ And that’s the most prosaic of the new policing toys that are
becoming available. Reporter Ando Arick analysed the new generation of
weaponry in an article in Harper’s called “The Soft-Kill Solution – New
Frontiers In Pain Compliance”. He recounts a 60 Minutes investigation into a
new weapon to be used for what the military said was “crowd control in Iraq”.
The United States has never had fully militarized police before, armed with
the kind of high-tech surveillance and weaponry that would never be allowed if
the National Guard were called up in an emergency. And neither have we ever
had such a malleable definition of what constitutes an emergency.

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:25 am #

(8) That he denied and took away power from the States (impeachable; anyone
injured or killed due to those actions, prosecutable))

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Another aspect of the Constitution’s separation of powers is the principle
of federalism. Federalism is a legal and political system where the national
or federal government shares power with the state governments while each
maintains some degree of sovereignty.

The Constitution helps to delineate the roles of the federal government by
spelling out its limited powers, which are outlined in the first three
Articles. Section 10 of Article I also places specific, limited restrictions
on the states; however, these restrictions actually serve to emphasize the
powers reserved exclusively to the federal government (e.g., the power to make
treaties with other nations). Article IV delineates a few fundamental
requirements incumbent upon state governments, as well as guaranteeing to each
state a republican form of government. Other than the limited guidance given
to the states, the Constitution does not direct the states on the
establishment and functions of state governments. The idea is that there are
certain limited activities the federal government is best situated to handle;
there are other activities that are best left to the states; and still others
best dealt with by counties, cities, families, and individuals. 10th
Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people

State law enforcement agencies (Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, who has spent
the latter half of his life teaching sheriffs that they are the top law
enforcement officers in their counties despite continuing federal intervention
attempts. Dean Wilson, sheriff of Del Norte County (Sacramento), is a great
example of this great awakening. He received the loudest and longest applause
for his candor in confessing past faults after apologizing for not
understanding the central government assault and land grab being committed
against the people and what he should have been doing about it. Only in the
past year has he done a turnaround and begun to behave as a county sheriff
instead of an extension of federal law enforcement

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:25 am #

(6) Lied to the American People and congress

About Afghanistan, war (impeachable and prosecutable – murder for
killings)

Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when
communicating with the U.S. Congress and American people in regards to
conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become
unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both
our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political
solution to the war in Afghanistan.” Lt. Colonel Daniel Davis, a 17-year Army
veteran recently returned from a second tour in Afghanistan.

Lied to the People about NDAA, Patriot Act, Healthcare Bill aka
Obamacare

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

On September 8th, 2011, General William Shelton told lawmakers during a
highly classified briefing. The four-star general is in charge of Air Force
Space Command. According to the Daily Beast, “Pressed by members, Gen. William
Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to
make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.”

Using our military for UN war efforts

(7) Failed to provide all necessary documents (impeachable)

To the satisfaction of all, or a majority of the American people that he
meets the three requirements to run for, or be the POTUS (He does NOT qualify,
under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to
be eligible to serve as President.

Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) language does NOT include language
stating Obama is Qualified, while the Republican Nominating Committee (RNC)
document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC
MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:26 am #

[D] Killing by a Non-Felon

[1] The “Agency” Approach – A majority of states that have considered the
issue apply the so-called “agency” theory of felony murder, which precludes
any killing committed during the commission of the felon by a person other
that the defendant or his accomplices from serving as the basis for
felony-murder. However, a killing by an accomplice can be imputed to others
involved in the commission of the felony so that felony-murder can be charged
against the non-killers.

[2] “Proximate Causation” Approach – A minority of courts apply the
“proximate causation” theory of felony-murder under which a felon is liable
for any death proximately resulting from the felony, whether the killer is a
felon or a third party.

[3] “Provocative Act” Doctrine – A felon may be held responsible for the
death of another at the hands of a third party, if the basis for the charge is
not felony-murder, but instead is founded on what is sometimes termed the
“provocative act” doctrine, which is simply a form of reckless homicide, e.g.,
a felon recklessly provokes a victim to shoot in self-defense, killing an
innocent bystander.

§ 24.05 Manslaughter

[A] Forms of Manslaughter – Traditionally, three types of unlawful killings
constitute manslaughter:

an intentional killing committed in “sudden heat of passion” as the result
of “adequate provocation” (voluntary manslaughter);an unintentional killing
resulting from the commission of a lawful act done in an unlawful manner
(involuntary manslaughter). This is akin to criminally negligent homicide.an
unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted
commission of an unlawful act (involuntary manslaughter). This type of
manslaughter is sometimes dubbed “unlawful-act manslaughter,” or if the
killing occurred during the commission of a non-felony,
“misdemeanor-manslaughter.”

(5) Is a domestic enemy of the USA (impeachable and prosecutable)

“Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US
Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People
guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that
goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the
Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction;
vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US
Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights.

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Misapplication

Using our military for UN war efforts

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:26 am #

The Model Penal Code rejects the degrees-of-murder approach.

[B] Intent to Kill

[1] “Deliberate and Premeditated” – Typically, a murder involving the
specific intent to kill is first-degree murder in jurisdictions that grade the
offense by degrees if the homicide was also “deliberate” and
“premeditated.”

[2] “Wilful, Deliberate, Premeditated” – Nearly all states that grade
murder by degrees provide that a “wilful, deliberate, premeditated” killing is
murder in the first degree.

[3] “Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Injury” – Malice aforethought is
implied if a person intends to cause grievous bodily injury to another, but
death results. In states that grade murder by degree, this form of malice
nearly always constitutes second-degree murder.

[4] Extreme Recklessness (“Depraved Heart” Murder) – Malice aforethought is
implied if a person’s conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value
of human life. In states that separate murder into degrees, this type of
murder almost always constitutes second-degree murder.

[C] Model Penal Code – A homicide is murder if the defendant intentionally
takes a life, or if he acts with extreme recklessness (i.e., depraved heart
murder).

§ 24.03 Felony-Murder

[A] Common Law – At common law, a person is guilty of murder if he kills
another person during the commission or attempted commission of any felony.
Nearly every state retains the felony-murder rule.

[B] Statutory Law – Under most modern murder statutes, a death that results
from the commission of an enumerated felony (usually a dangerous felony, such
as arson, rape, robbery, or burglary) constitutes first-degree murder for
which the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment. If a death results
from the commission of an unspecified felony, it is second-degree murder. The
felony-murder rule authorizes strict liability for a death that results from
commission of a felony.

[C] Model Penal Code – The Code also provides for felony-murder by setting
forth that extreme recklessness (and, thus, murder) is presumed if the
homicide occurs while the defendant is engaged in, or is an accomplice in, the
commission, attempted commission, or flight from one of the dangerous felonies
specified in the statute. [MPC § 210.2(1)(b)]

§ 24.04 Limits on the Felony-Murder Rule

[A] Inherently-Dangerous-Felony Limitation – Many states limit the rule to
homicides that occur during the commission of felonies which by their nature
are dangerous to human life, e.g., armed robbery.

[B] Independent Felony (or Merger) Limitation – Most states recognize some
form of “independent felony” or “collateral felony” limitation. That is, the
felony-murder rule only applies if the predicate felony is independent of, or
collateral to, the homicide. If the felony is not independent, then the felony
merges with the homicide and cannot serve as the basis for a felony-murder
conviction. For example, most jurisdictions hold that felonious assault may
not serve as the basis for felony-murder.

[C] Res Gestae Requirement – A requirement of the felony-murder rule is
that the homicide must occur “within the res gestae [things done to commit] of
the felony,” which requires both:

temporal and geographical proximity – There must be a close proximity in
terms of time and distance between the felony and the homicide. The res gestae
period begins when the defendant has reached the point at which he could be
prosecuted for an attempt to commit the felony, and it continues at least
until all of the elements of the crime are completed. Most courts provide that
the res gestae of a felony continues, even after commission of the crime,
until the felon reaches a place of temporary safety A causal relationship
between the felony and the homicide.

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:27 am #

Using our military for UN war efforts

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim24.htm

§ 24.01 Definition of Homicide

[A] Common Law and Statutory Homicide – At very early common law,
“homicide” was defined as “the killing of a human being by a human being.”
This definition included suicide. However, modern law defines “homicide” as
“the killing of a human being by another human being.” Suicide, therefore, is
no longer a form of homicide in most statutes. Homicide is divided into two
crimes – murder and manslaughter.

[1] “Human Being” – The common law and majority approaches define the
beginning of life as birth for purposes of interpreting the criminal homicide
law. A minority of states now treat a viable – or, at times, even nonviable –
fetus as a human being under the homicide statute.

Regarding the end of human life, a majority of states, either by statute or
judicial decision, have incorporated “brain death” in their definition of
“death.”

[2] “Murder” – The common law definition of “murder” is “the killing of a
human being by another human being with malice aforethought.”

[3] “Manslaughter” – Manslaughter is “an unlawful killing of a human being
by another human being without malice aforethought.”

[4] “Malice” – As the term has developed, a person kills another acts with
the requisite “malice” if he possesses any one of four states of mind:

the intention to kill a human being;the intention to inflict grievous
bodily injury on another;an extremely reckless disregard for the value of
human life; orthe intention to commit a felony during the commission or
attempted commission of which a death results.

[B] Model Penal Code – A person is guilty of criminal homicide under the
Model Code if he unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human
being [MPC § 210.0(1)] purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. [MPC
§ 210.1(1)] The Code recognizes three forms of criminal homicide: murder,
manslaughter, and (unlike the common law) negligent homicide.

§ 24.02 Murder

[A] Degrees of Murder – At common law, there were no degrees of murder, and
murder was a capital offense. Reform of the common law has resulted in the
division of murder into degrees, with only murder in the first degree being a
capital offense.

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:27 am #

(1) Committed treason (impeachable and prosecutable)

a. Supplied arms to illegal gunrunners for foreign nation that was later
used on American soil to kill US citizens.

Operation Gunrunner, Fast and Furious (Impeachable and prosecutable)

Got the funding for Operation Gunrunner (Fast and Furious) on his second
try, rolled into the stimulus package a month later.H.R.1 American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Ordered the sale of arms to illegal gunrunners
for foreign nation used against and killing US citizens on American soil, also
resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry using one of the
trafficked guns.

ATF leadership appears to have been effectively muzzled while the DOJ sent
over false denials and buried its head in the sand,” … “That approach
distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation.” … the activities of
other agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI,
perhaps even the U.S. Attorneys Office and the Department of Homeland
Security.

At an oversight hearing last month, three federal firearms investigators
testified that they wanted to “intervene and interdict” the guns at the
border, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside and let the traffickers
proceed. “Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals
this was the plan,” John Dodson, an ATF agent, told the panel. “It was so
mandated.” Agent Olindo James Casa said that “on several occasions I
personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered
to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”

Project Gun Runner (Fast and Furious) was launched under the orders of
President Barack Obama with the knowledge of Attorney General Eric Holder.
Deputy Attorney General David Ogden announced the Obama Administration’s new
and aggressive ‘comprehensive plan’ on March, 24, 2009. The plan was aimed at
disrupting gun trafficking between the United States and Mexico.

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his
subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which
means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not
necessary to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his
instigation or with his knowledge. It’s sufficient to show, on the
preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the
part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could
to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the
subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office”

Obama and Holder walk guns into Honduras also

Maladministration

Misapplication

(4) Committed Murder under Penal Code

Operation Gunrunner, Fast and Furious (Impeachable and prosecutable)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Info on #3

Maladministration

Misapplication

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:28 am #

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement,
the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to
Support and Defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler,
office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced,
refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office
or of discharge.

o The meanings of the words in the Oath for everyone else: “I”- an
individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer; “do” – perform,
accomplish, act, carry out, complete, achieve, execute; “solemnly”- somberly,
gravely, seriously, earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and
ceremony; “swear (or affirm)” – vow, pledge, promise, guarantee; “that I will”
– a positive phrase confirming present and future action, momentum,
determination, resolve, responsibility, willpower, and intention; “support” –
uphold, bear, carry, sustain, maintain; “and defend” – protect, guard,
preserve, secure, shield, look after; “the Constitution of the United
States.”

“Bound – Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary
or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

o First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to
regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established
the oath required by civil and military officials to support the
Constitution.

o The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution
in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State
Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article
VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the
Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction,
are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. Hence the need for Statue 1
to define the administration of the Oath.

He violated the law and the provisions of the Constitution by seizing
control of GM and Chrysler without proper authorization from Congress.
Although his unlawful cronies in Congress granted him the authority after the
fact, his action to seize corporations was a violation of the law at the time
it was implemented. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed this atrocity
is no matter. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he articulated a key
principle of liberty–any government that willfully violates the rule of law
and encroaches on the rights of the people ceases to be a legitimate
government. This government has violated the provisions of the 5th Amendment
regarding due process and fair compensation at the very least.

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:29 am #

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first
session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act
to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which
established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the
Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in
Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State
Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article
VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the
Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction,
are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. Hence the need for Statue 1
to define the administration of the Oath. (Impeachable and prosecutable)

Solemn: “marked by the observance of established form or ceremony”,
“legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been
consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”,
“The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally
binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they
are agreeing to”. (American fully expected a president who followed the US
Constitutional definition of how our government operates. Part of his “why he
was better candidate” brought up many times while running was that he was a
“Constitutional Professor”

“Bound – Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary
or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

Maladministration

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8: it
stipulates that Congress duty is to “coin money” as a nation and not the
Federal Reserve’s with its interest (fee charged on loans). Obama has not
corrected this illegal act, nor has he insisted on a complete audit, nor has
he frozen the Federal Reserve assets until we can ascertain if what they have
done with OUR money is legal; $16 Trillion given to foreign nations, banks,
and foreign based mega corporations with no knowledge of congress or the
American people (defend our Constitution, country from previous domestic
enemies)

Keep states their power

The meanings of the words in the Oath: “I”- an individual, person, citizen,
one member of the whole, officer; “do” – perform, accomplish, act, carry out,
complete, achieve, execute; “solemnly”- somberly, gravely, seriously,
earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and ceremony; “swear (or
affirm)” – vow, pledge, promise, guarantee; “that I will” – a positive phrase
confirming present and future action, momentum, determination, resolve,
responsibility, willpower, and intention; “preserve” – to keep safe from
injury, harm, or destruction; “protect” – to cover or shield from exposure,
injury, damage, or destruction, to maintain the status or integrity of
especially through financial or legal guarantees, to provide a guard or
shield; “and defend” – protect, guard, preserve, secure, shield, look after;
“the Constitution of the United States.”

Reply

KansasBright February 21, 2012 at 4:32 am #

I charge that Barack Obama has not done the duties required of the
President of the USA as defined by the US Constitution, actively and knowingly
went against the duties of the POTUS; and needs to be impeached. Then he needs
to be charged, arrested, and held for prosecution, as he is a flight risk.

The Constitution of the United States specifies that an officer is to be
impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”; experts agree that impeachment
is permitted for noncriminal misconduct (e.g., violation of the Constitution),
and can include criminal/civil actions.

It has invited considerable debate, but it is generally read to mean both
indictable offenses and other serious noncriminal misconduct. The latter has
included corruption, dereliction of constitutional duty, and violation of
limitations on the power of an office

Actions he committed against our laws require prosecution.

Few of those who currently serve within the three branches of our federal
government have been performing their duties as required by our US
Constitution, which they knew before taking those offices and positions
defined the way those offices and positions defined the exact way those
offices/positions operated.

That Obama:

(1) Actively and knowingly went against the US Constitutional and the
citizens of the United States. (impeachable)

Conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and
principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional
duties of the presidential office

NDAA

Patriot Act extensions and additions to

Warrantless Search and Seizures

TSA warrantless searches

Denial of First Amendment Rights

Denial of Second Amendment Rights

Maladministration

Misapplication

Mandate to make us all buy health insurance

Using our military for UN war efforts

(2) Did not keep the oath required of him by the US Constitution.
(impeachable)

President Obama had/has taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had/has
violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. (*Clinton
Impeachment)

Took the Oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution”
(prosecutable, as he is a domestic enemy attacking us from the inside.)

Oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”

Reply

← Older Comments

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Action Alert: Help Nullify NDAA, ‘Indefinite
Detention’ in the State of Michigan | - April 2,
2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

California: Urgent Last-Minute Action to Stop NDAA
“Indefinite Detention” – Tenth Amendment Center Blog - April 6, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Missouri: Help Nullify NDAA Indefinite Detention –
Tenth Amendment Center Blog - April 6, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Call Sen. Tick Segerblom Regarding NDAA Nullification:
He’s Asked You To | ...Truth... Something To Die For... - April 9, 2013

[...] lot more rights he believes shouldn’t be yours, but the government’s.
(See post below or just click here I suppose, more links below
[...]

California NDAA Nullification Bill Passes Assembly
Committee Unanimously – Tenth Amendment Center Blog - April 9, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Michigan: Act Now to Help Nullify NDAA Indefinite
Detention – Tenth Amendment Center Blog - April
15, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Michigan House Unanimously Passes NDAA Nullfication
Bill – Tenth Amendment Center Blog - April 19,
2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Round 2: California vs NDAA “Indefinite Detention.” –
Tenth Amendment Center Blog - April 25,
2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

New Hampshire: NDAA Nullification Bill Needs Your
Support – Tenth Amendment Center Blog - May 7,
2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Texas Action Alert: NDAA Nullification Vote on
Thursday, May 9th – Tenth Amendment Center Blog - May 7, 2013

[...] House Bill 149, The Liberty Preservation Act to nullify NDAA
“indefinite detention,” is one of the strongest bills in the country in
response to that unconstitutional federal act. [...]

California: Do-or-Die to Stop NDAA “Indefinite
Detention” – Tenth Amendment Center Blog - May 11,
2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Full California Assembly to Vote on Rejecting NDAA
“Indefinite Detention” | Tenth Amendment Center Blog - May 24, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

On Indefinite Detention, California Assembly Tells
Washington DC, Not Here! | Tenth Amendment Center Blog - May 30, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

California Action Alert: Pass AB351, Help Stop
“Indefinite Detention” | Tenth Amendment Center Blog - June 16, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Action Alert: Nullify NDAA “Indefinite Detention”
Locally in Colorado | Tenth Amendment Center Blog - June 16, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Indiana Action Alert: Time to Nullify Indefinite
Detention Locally | Tenth Amendment Center Blog - June 23, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Pennsylvania Bill Would Nullify NDAA “Indefinite
Detention” | Tenth Amendment Center Blog - June
27, 2013

[...] NDAA: Open Season for the Police State [...]

Login

Username

Password

Remember Me

Lost
Password

Register

Follow Us!

TAC Newsletter

join
our mailing list

* indicates required

Email Address *

State * Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California
Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida
Georgia Hawaii
Idaho Illinois
Indiana Iowa
Kansas Kentucky
Louisiana Maine
Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota
Mississippi Missouri Montana
Nebraska Nevada
New Hampshire New Jersey New
Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio
Oklahoma Oregon
Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington
West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Optional: Check to ALSO Get the
TAC Daily Digest

TAC Daily
Digest

Close

Loading

Trending

Follow TAC on Twitter
My Tweets

Meta

Register

Log in

Entries RSS

Comments RSS

Tenth Amendment
Center

WP Engine WordPress
Hosting.

Tenth Amendment Center
Blog

Protecting
Rights is your State’s Duty

Nullifying
Washington D.C. in Washington D.C?

What
Were the Motivations Behind the 17th Amendment?

Secrecy
Versus a Free Society

NSA
Uses Loophole to Justify Collecting Domestic E-mail, Phone
Calls

Tenther Radio »
Archives

Tenther
Radio Episode #112: Political Courage is Rare.

Tenther
Radio Episode #111: Step by Step

Tenther
Radio Episode #110: We’ve Only Just Begun!

Tenther
Radio Episode #109: Nullify Locally

Tenther
Radio Episode #108: Thank You!

Recent Comments

Mike Maharrey on Taking
Down Another Establishment Hack

Jerry Morris on Some
Clarification on ‘Integrity’

somedude on Taking
Down Another Establishment Hack

12AngryWomen on A
Tenther’s Marketing Plan

Douglas Grendahl on Some
Clarification on ‘Integrity’

© 2013 Tenth Amendment Center. All Rights Reserved.