Guest Post: An Agent Of The King In Every Home

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

An Agent Of The King In Every Home

The legal concept of citizen privacy from
government intrusion is unfortunately a very new one in the long strides
of human history. The idea that government can be limited,
or restricted in its powers by the people, and that certain realms of
life can and should be off-limits to the prying eyes of bureaucracy, is
rarely applied in any culture of any era. This is because most civilizations have been founded and ruled upon the principles of military dominance. There was no separation between the government and the armies it fashioned; the government WAS the military. That
is to say, martial law was a way of life for society, privacy was a
foolish dream, and daring to contest the fact usually led to one’s
death.

The Magna Carta of 1215, which King John was
essentially forced to support, established a foundation for civil
liberties which would then be fought over for the next several
centuries. Beginning in 1627, and the ‘Petition of Right’
in Britain, common citizens began demanding a separation between
military and civilian life, as well as the dismantling of standing
armies which at that time were being used by the corrupt oligarchy as a
means to subdue the populace. The aristocracy called it “royal prerogative”. The masses called it tyranny. However, as we all know, such breaks in the suffocation of despotism are few and fleeting. Fractures
in the Petition of Right were frequent, and the aptitude of government
to make war (even when there is no call for war) became the common
excuse for the rulership to degrade civilian legal protections and
hurtle them back into the dark ages, where property is a novelty that
the authorities violate at their leisure.

During the years leading up to the American
Revolution, the British attempted to stifle the growing independent
nature of the colonies by issuing laws such as the ‘Writs of
Assistance’, bypassing rights to privacy and allowing officials to
search homes and businesses at will without probable cause, supposedly
in the name of “capturing smugglers”. Not fully satisfied
with this intrusion on the lives of the colonists, King George and his
cronies issued the ‘Quartering Acts’, which required all colonists to
welcome soldiers sent to subjugate them into their homes and to their
dinner tables. According to law, early Americans were not
only forced to allow warrant-less searches of their homes, they also had
to show hospitality to the goons sent to dirty their doorsteps!

The purpose of these actions by governments is to assert their control over a population. THAT – IS – ALL. Rationalizations
are always made; usually in the name of “protecting the public from
harm”, but the real name of the game is imperialism, and fear. When
the establishment violates the line of citizen privacy, and gives its
agents the legal free reign to enter your home at will, the message they
are trying to send is: “Your property is our property. Your life is our business. The law does not protect you. The law is our weapon.” In other words: Resistance is futile.

The Revolutionary War and the U.S. Constitution
should have been the final word on the matter of limited government and
the inherent rights of individuals. But, the Founding
Fathers only thwarted the elites for a time, and as long as such
powerful minorities of men exist, there will always be new methods of
tyranny, and new battles to be endured. Some may respond
skeptically, claiming that our society today is a far cry from the age
of British oppression and soldiers storming our living rooms and our
pantries. I would have to disagree of course, after I stopped cringing at their ignorance.

The 4th Amendment A Fond Memory…

Last month in a 3-2 decision that has shocked the
independent media community but gone mostly unreported in the
mainstream, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no right
to block an officer’s entry into their home, even if the officer does
not have a warrant. The officer also does not have to give
any clear indication as to why he wishes to enter your home, meaning he
can enter without cause. Justice Steven David, one of the supporting judges stated:

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful
police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible
with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence…”

“We also find that allowing resistance
unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of
injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-indiana-supreme-court-critics-argue-landmark-indiana-ruling-violates-right-to-privacy-20110517,0,5143977.story

Keep in mind, this is the same Indiana court that
decided in a previous case that an officer serving a warrant is not
required to knock (make his presence known) before entering your home if
he feels circumstances require it. So, to clarify; if an
officer wishes to walk into your house, for any reason, he may do so,
without a warrant, and without even knocking. You cannot block his path. You cannot close your door and lock it. You cannot kick his ass. You can’t even discuss the matter calmly with him before hand. He just walks in, and, he is legally protected.

Amazing…

While the Indiana Supreme Court did follow the
decision by pointing out that a homeowner may protest an officer’s
wrongful search through the courts after the fact, this is hardly any
solace, and is almost adding insult to injury, since these are the exact
courts that have decided our 4th Amendment rights no longer apply. Obviously,
once you allow authorities to savage your Constitutional freedoms, they
are hardly going to let you punish them later through their own court
system.

Indiana Sheriff Don Hartman Sr., in response to the
court ruling, stated in an interview that he believed the decision gave
him the power to conduct house to house warrant-less searches, an idea
which he still defends:

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

This is just the latest of a string of court decisions across the country which expand the definitions of applied law. That
is to say, there is a concerted and widespread effort by courts
(especially federal courts) to broaden the accepted language of the law,
so that, in fact, authorities can interpret the law to mean whatever
they wish it to mean for whatever purpose fits their specific needs at
the time.

Cell phones are fair game, according to courts in
California, and police now have the ability to search your personal data
when taken into custody, even if you have not been officially charged
with a crime:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-04/bay-area/26357969_1_cell-phones-searches-police-department

The Supreme Court has ruled that cops are allowed
to search your premises without a warrant if they “smell marijuana” and
“hear evidence being destroyed”. Just out of curiosity, what does it sound like when evidence is being destroyed? Does the Supreme Court have the sound on file somewhere? Without a doubt, certain not quite-so-honorable police will take advantage of this ridiculous decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html?_r=1

New Mexico has ruled that officers may confiscate
firearms from your vehicle during a traffic stop even if they have no
reasonable cause to do so, trampling the 2nd Amendment as well as the 4th. Also
in New Mexico (as in many states), if you have a conceal carry permit,
you are supposed to announce to the officer that you have a weapon on
your person. Meaning, now you have to let the traffic cop
know that you have a firearm in the car and hope he doesn’t decide to
take it away from you:

http://www.guns.com/nm-court-traffic-cops-can-seize-guns-even-if-no-law-has-been-broken.html

We saw the broadening tactic with the passage of
the Food Safety Bill S. 510 and the immensely heightened powers of the
FDA to regulate even the most minute farm activity. We also
saw it in the railroading of Liberty Dollar founder Bernard von NotHaus
by the Department of Justice when they used an obscure and loosely
worded statute, essentially comparing the coinage of ANY alternative
currency, no matter how distant in appearance to U.S. legal tender, to
counterfeiting. Now, we are seeing the tactic applied to the 4th
Amendment itself, as law enforcement agents are given extreme prejudice
to interpret their rules of engagement however they see fit. Such corruption has occurred despite the application of the 4th
Amendment, to be sure, but now, the ease at which it can occur and the
lack of any redress by citizens is so pronounced, there can be only one
outcome; police abuse on an incredible scale.

What we are witnessing is a time honored process
exploited by autocrats the world over, now being utilized right here in
America. What began with the passage of the FISA Bill and
the expansion of government power to tap and monitor any American’s
communications without a warrant, we are now seeing in our very
neighborhoods. The law is being fogged and obscured until
it is no longer clearly defined, which allows police and courts to
operate within a vast grey area of legal chicanery. All
social structures become warped in the wake of this process until we are
no longer able to recognize that which is lawful, and that which is
unlawful. In the end, we will discover that almost ANYTHING
can be labeled “illegal” by the establishment in such an environment,
and that no one, no matter how harmless and abiding, is safe from the
storm.

Going Down In Flames…

I see where this is heading, and the destination is
grim, but don’t take my word for it, just simply look at what is
happening around you. The divide between law enforcement and the citizenry is growing. With
the Department of Homeland Security now actively placing local police
and sheriff’s departments in military training regiments, in military
style gear, and even arming them with tanks and heavy machine guns (yes,
tanks and .50 cal machine guns), it is becoming much harder to qualify
local law enforcement as a civilian entity, rather than just another
extension of the Department of Defense:

http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/01/sheriff-lotts-new-toy

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16004590

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41912754/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/why-do-americas-police-need-armored-tank/

Even if military outfits like Northcom are not used
openly as a standing army within the U.S., we already have a standing
army in the form of men who were once called peace officers, whose
mandate was once to “protect and serve”. Now, the words “to
protect and serve” are disappearing from police cars nationwide, and we
have a law enforcement community gearing up for war! The economic breakdown has exacerbated the situation even further. As
states lose more and more funding due to the crashing municipal bond
markets, they are now becoming completely dependent on federal cash. And, with federal cash, there are many unfortunate strings attached…

If you have been paying attention to
police brutality cases over the past few years, then you have noticed a
blatant trend towards swift and immediate unprovoked violence resulting
in terminal consequences. When law enforcement is trained
for combat, for attack, rather than defense, when they are conditioned
to believe that the public is the enemy, and that they are somehow
separate, or superior, very bad things begin to happen. Let’s take a short walk down memory lane…

Oscar Grant, 22, was shot in the back by police in
Oakland, CA, while restrained and laying on the ground, pleading with
officers that he had a four-year-old-daughter. The incident
was caught on at least three separate cell phone cameras (which may
have been one of the reasons why courts in CA are so keen on allowing
warrant-less search and seizure of cell phones). The
shooting officer, Johannes Mehserle, was eventually charged with
involuntary manslaughter (???) serving a two year sentence and eligible
for parole by the end of this year. If his actions had not
been caught on video and disseminated across the web, who knows if he
would have even been charged at all:

 

John T. Williams, 50, and nearly deaf in one ear, was shot by Seattle
police for whittling a piece of wood while walking across the street. Officer
Ian Birk exited his vehicle, claiming Williams was “acting strangely”,
yelled at him to drop the knife, then giving him less than ten seconds
to comply, fired several rounds from his weapon, killing the man. The officer later claimed that Williams walked towards him in a menacing fashion. Witnesses argued to the contrary. Note that Birk had already drawn his firearm as he exited the vehicle. Also
note that Birk did not identify himself as a police officer as is
required by law. Williams’ knife was also found folded shut by
responding officers to the scene. Birk resigned due to public pressure, but was not charged with a crime:

 

And most recently, Jose Guerena, 26, and a former marine, was shot 60
times (a sign of undisciplined fire) in Pima County, Arizona, by a
SWAT team entering his home also occupied by his wife and four-year-old
son. Guerena’s wife stated that she had seen men through the window with guns, but that they could not be identified. Guerena grabbed his rifle (as most marines would) and told his family to hide. The
Pima Sheriff’s Department has changed their story on this incident
several times now, but this much is clear; the department claimed
Guerena fired at them with his AR-15 as they entered the home. This was a lie. Guerena’s weapon had the safety still on after his death. When this fact was made public, Pima admitted that he never fired a shot. Pima claims that they have a warrant for the Guerena home, but have obtained a court order which had it sealed from the public. Why they had it sealed is unknown (did they even have the right house?). The Guerena raid was part of a neighborhood action, supposedly to bust a drug dealing operation in the area. No drugs were found in Guerena’s home. The reason why SWAT was necessary to serve the warrant in the first place is also still unclear:

 

My purpose in showing you these disturbing videos is not to make you hate cops. It is to illustrate a dangerous trend amongst our civil servants. Where
we once had a few “bad apples” to contend with in our police
departments, now we have official training handed down from the DOD
which practically requires law enforcement officials to undergo a combat
mindset, a psychology of aggression. In many cases, I believe, these officers are not doing what they do out of malice or ill intent. They are doing what they do because they are being TRAINED to do it. This is what happens when a society becomes militarized. It cannot be avoided, and it will only get worse from here on. Now
imagine a violent element like this being given unlimited power to
decide which homes they wish to enter and how they will enter them…

Why I Will Not Submit To A Warrant-less Search…

Constitutional values cannot defend themselves. They require the people to stand firm, and to never yield. Americans
today have yielded far too much already, and at some point very soon,
we’re going to have to make the hard choice on what is more important;
our general safety and personal comfort, or our freedoms and the
freedoms of future generations. Like the American Colonials, we have a system that does not serve our best interests, but the interests of an elite few. We are quickly losing our ability to dictate the terms of our own society, and our own destinies. Sadly, we are not yet presenting the determination that the colonials held in the face of this danger. Today, we are a nation mourning its own demise before it has even occurred. We have turned to reluctant compliance and submission. We are, frankly, whiny and pathetic.

This does not have to be.

While fantastic organizations like Oath Keepers are
working hard to educate police and military on their sworn duty to
uphold and defend Constitutional liberties, we as the citizenry must
also show our support and resolve to see that the values and principles
outlined in that historic document are not tarnished by apathy. The proverbial line in the sand must be drawn now, or not at all. This means, at the very least, non-compliance with unjust laws that defile our conscience, as well as our heritage.

The common response to this by naysayers would be: “You’ll comply when you have a gun in your face…”

That’s what naysayers throughout history have always said, though. They said it to the Founding Fathers, to Gandhi, and beyond. There will always be another gun to put in the faces of men who fight for the truth of a thing. There will always be men to point those guns at us. The question is, who will be more steadfast? Is the will to dominate really stronger than the will to be free? Can you ever control a people who do not fear you, even at the barrel of a gun? This
is the mindset that brought this country to life, and it is a mindset
we must rediscover, if we are to have any chance of survival.