15 votes

D.C. Police Chief: Constitution Does Not Apply Here

“If you’re coming here to break the law, we’ll take action.”: http://libertyfirewall.com/2013/05/07/d-c-police-chief-const...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Making the fascists

Making the fascists physically disarm these guys may not be the craziest idea ever... If it can get any real coverage.

All I can say is they better have strict discipline and lots of cameras and lawyers on hand and on all sides of this thing live streaming the entire time. Practice practice practice. The DC thugs will be looking to exploit this if they can.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Technically, she's correct.

The Constitution does not apply within the District of Criminals (or the territories and possession of the United States)

Read Downes v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

Be sure to read Justice Harlan's dissent:

"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism."

Whether you like it or not, there are two (actually three, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vo...) entities named "United States". You just have to figure out which one you are talking about at any given time.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balzac_v._Porto_Rico

After reading these three decisions, come to the realization that Congress can do anything.

meekandmild's picture

I bet on his commission card

It has the oath to the constitution and his signature.
With that statement he is purging his oath.

He is correct, the Constituion does not apply in DC.

Taking what I've learned from TeamLaw.net their standard of review which states;
**This material has been reproduced from the TeamLaw.net Open Forum System**

Team Law's: Standard for Review

Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:
First understand who the parties are (from their origin);
Always know yourself first (start at Genesis 1:26–28);
Discover the true nature of all other parties second;
Then you must understand the historical and environmental nature of the relationship; and,
Only then can you understand how applicable laws may effect the relationship; thus, it’s time to thoroughly study such laws.
(To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied all three parts of Rule 1, only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship; thus, the details of any given situation in question can have no real meaning until Rule 1 is applied.)

Rule 2: Review the details in question (in the relationship) only after you have completed the review required by Rule 1, then review the actual terms of the relationship and the details in question in accord with what you learned from applying Rule 1.

I defend the Chief's comments by suggesting that, through application of the standard of review, one would recognize that the District of Columbia (AKA US GOVERNMENT) owns and fully controls their territory with the District. The Constitution is a trust instrument where by The People are the beneficiaries of such a trust, creating public office trustees to execute the public trust for the public good.

Then the Civil War, I call it the federal take-over, came and used the north to conquer the south while simultaneously, through an act of congress, was granted a parcel of land (D.C.) through the 1871 organic district of columbia act, which built upon the 1801 act.

The District of columbia, aka US GOVERNMENT,INC, was formed in 1871 in order to handle the business needs of the Government of the United States of America. Within that territory the statutes of CorpUS (aka USGOV) are actual law because that territory belongs, by grant of congress, to the US Government. However, outside of that district the territories are not within the domain of CorpUS; therefore, only subjects of CorpUS, aka taxpayers, are subject to the statutes of CorpUS within their "congressional districts".

Also consider that there are different and distinct Constitutions, for instance, Constitution for the United States of America was a single piece of paper(1 page document) that was in force before the bill of rights was added/ratified. When the states accepted the combined 2 papers, original plus bill of rights, that created a new document called Constitution of the United States of America; a separate and distinct Constitution. One way to easily tell the difference between CorpUS rule and the Republic is to look toward the Senators. In our Corporate Democracy Senators are elected by popular vote whereas in our Republic they were appointed and replace at will by State Presidents(Governors). When the Senators where elected by popular vote the Republic was vacated(but still in existence!).

This is not the end of the story, however. I believe it was the 1910's - 1920 the CorpUS became bankrupted in 1912 (which lead to the fed reserve act in 1913). After the settlement CorpUS was owned by foreign interests(creating a conflict of interest) and as such drafted a new constitution called US Constitution. It was a near replica of the Constitution of the United States of America except that it eliminated the 13th amendment (titles of nobility) and continued by the creation of its corporate taxpayer subjects, the 14 amendment corporate taxpayer citizens- which the first were the newly freed slaves. And, of course, the election of Senators by popular vote.

So the idea that we can go into CorpUSs territory, which is owned now by private international interests, and tell them what to do because we have a disillusioned,(Patriot Propaganda), understanding of who we are, who they are, and the relationship between them, is outlandish and a trap to call us consenting taxpayers who do not want to comply(aka terrorists). Understanding these elements will clear the fog of illusion and allow the people too lawfully regain our Nation.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

That's funny, because that;s

That's funny, because that;s the only place the US Constitution applies...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

ecorob's picture

Oh, that is SO "on point"!

Funny sad, too, that the police dick doesn't understand that.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

"The Second Amendment" is a DESCRIPTION...

of a natural right.

Further, it is a restriction on ALL municipalities.

I hope Kokesh and Company are prepared to use deadly force to prevent being disarmed. It is time to stand up to tyrants, be they federal or local.

Unfortunately, the Ploice Chief is right.

This Constitution was written by the People of the several States FOR the united States of America. States are countries or nations. DC is not a State. It is not a country or a proper nation. The United States, which is the corporate federal body, is not a state, country or nation either. An allegiance to it is an allegiance to a corporation which exists in a federal district outside the union of American states. This Constitution does not apply there. It is OUTSIDE this Constitution, as are all the other federal territories and "protectorates."

DC, in my opinion, will never become a State because it would then have to conform to this Constitution.

US citizens, btw, have pledged allegiance to this corporate entity and are nationals of Washington DC, and are therefore not nationals of any of the States in union. This Constitution does not apply to them either, whether they live in DC or "reside" elsewhere.

Now you know the problem.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

There is no exception

There is no exception for persons in the District of Columbia in the United States Constitution.

Of course this Constitution

Of course this Constitution makes no exception for "persons"in the District of Columbia.

You will recall that when this Constitution was written and adopted in 1787 the District did not exist.
See: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_dc )

The area of the District was then part of Maryland and Virginia. The "City of Washington was founded in 1791 to serve as the new national [union] capital." the District was fully incorporated and reformed in 1871, some 80 years later following the forced adoption of the 14th Amendment.

~ For easy access to some original Congressional Record sitings on this and other topics.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Where is the "state" legislature for D.C.??

What legislative body enacts laws for the District of Criminals?

After you answer this question, you will see why the bulk of the Acts of Congress do not apply within the states of the Union.


Using that reasoning, any State incorporated after the Constitution was ratified is also not part of the United States? This is ridiculous.

Someone should let the Supreme Court know.

Other states admitted on "equal footing"

The genesis of this idea is that before a territory becomes a state, it is first a territory created by Congress. The Northwest Ordinance extended the protections of the Constitution into the territory that later became Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Once extended, it cannot be removed, see Balzac v. Porto Rico.

However, if the protections are not so extended, they don't exist, Ibid.

Other cases of import on this topic are Hooven and Allison v Evatt, and Downes v. Bidwell. After you have read those decisions, you will see the point that is being made.

I think there is a very good chance that our president

pledges his allegiance to the corporate entity too. The POTUS always calls our country a Democracy when its a republic and they always swear to uphold the constitution when they never do...but IF the POTUS is swearing to uphold the constitution of the democratic corporation of the United States...it would all make sense then.

I know what Adam is doing is probably similar to dangling red meat in front of a hungry dog, but I still support it. I think it could be done and videoed close enough that if agent provocatours or other infiltraters were involved and started a problem...they could be identified.

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

THE Constitution is a "living

THE Constitution is a "living document" adopted by the federal government as its corporate by-laws and is distinguished from THIS Constitution, the original and "Organic" document ratified and adopted by The People of the several States in Union FOR the united States of America. The former is "interpreted" by SCOTUS, the latter is fixed in its meaning and historical precedent.

It's subtle, I know, but therein lies the mischief.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Oh, dear. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

“There’s a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”