US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment

Tim May timcmay at got.net
Mon Jan 12 00:18:13 PST 2004


On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:33 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote:
>
>> Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
>
> Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted
> once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made 
> it
> to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's
> conviction was overturned on grounds that the "identify yourself" law
> was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice "Actual Innocence" Rehnquist
> felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous.
>
> The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at
> http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html
>
> A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm
>

And vast amounts of misinformation are constantly being spread by the 
popular press, and in popular television shows, and in movies. One of 
the most popular t.v. shows, the oxymoronically named "Law and Order," 
almost weekly shows someone being told that if he doesn't help the 
police his restaurant will be shut down for a week while city health 
inspectors use a microscope on it. Another meme that is false is spread 
by "NYPD Blue," "Law and Order," and the Fox show that used to be on: 
"Cops" (not sure if it still is). Namely, that Fifth Amendment rights 
against compelled self-incrimination only apply after an actual arrest 
("You haven't been arrested yet, so let's not hear about how you can 
remain silent."), or after an attorney has arrived ("He lawyered up.")

The right not to be compelled to provide potentially incriminating 
evidence is a broad one, deeply enmeshed in our Bill of Rights. Even 
someone suspected of a crime, even a very serious crime, is under no 
compulsion to "talk to the police," whether or not he has a lawyer 
present.

There are regrettable exceptions, such as in our "pre-constitutional" 
(my view of it) grand jury system, where people can be told to tell all 
they know. Sometimes they get various types of immunity, often the 
claim is that their grand jury testimony will not be used to convict 
them (if they not ostensibly the principals in the crime!), and so on. 
But the fact is that grand jury testimony is often compelled 
self-incrimination.

(And one of the ways the Feds have been getting people they can't get 
in other, more direct, ways is to interview parties in a case and then 
find some subtle contradiction. Then the charge is "lying to a federal 
employee" (or somesuch...maybe the language is "lying in an official 
investigation," to distinguish it from lying to your neighbor the GS-12 
midlevel employee at NASA).

What I've done in several cases where I was stopped by cops is to SAY 
NOTHING. In the Stanford case, I told them I would not be giving them 
either my name or telling them what my business was that day at 
Stanford: it was not their business and I saw no reason to satisfy 
their  curiosity.  In a couple of cases in Santa Cruz, cops have asked 
me my name and asked why i was in a particular area. I told them I 
would be answering no questions.

In none of these cases was I arrested, booked, or charged.

I would, and have, answer questions if I knew there was no conceivable 
way I could become a "person of interest" in a case. I have answered 
police questions in some crimes I have had knowledge of (and wished to 
see the guilty parties dealt with...I would not lightly aid in a drug 
case, though.

And if one is committing no crime, answering a nosy cop's questions is 
neither required by my reading of the Constitution nor is healthy. (In 
the Stanford case, had I given them my name and/or ID, my name would 
have appeared in a report about "threats to the President, and our 
resolution of the case"--the SS version of quotas for traffic tickets.

(When one cop blurted out to me that he had seen me planting a bomb 
near the route Clinton would pass by, I _was_ tempted to say "I demand 
a lawyer!," just so they'd arrest me, etc. But I didn't, which is 
probably good, as I might have spent a few nights in jail...and felt 
the requirement to stalk the arresting officers and use a sniper rifle 
on one or more of them.)

We are certainly entering a police state era. Interesting that so many 
Jews are so strongly behind the fascist measures...Jews like 
Swinestein, Boxer, Lieberman, and hundreds of others. But, as in the 
ZOG state, the true heirs of the Third Reich are today's Jews...it 
would make a good "Outer Limits" episode, except the modern OL was 
thoroughly leftist, anti-gun, pro-ZOG, and had several episodes 
involving SS camp guards reincarnated as camp residents, and 
variations. So having the SS reincarnated in the ZOG state would not 
have fit their Zionist biases.

What the Jews think of Goyim is covered in the quotes from the Talmud, 
below.


--Tim May


#1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild 
animal."
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be 
violated."
#3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted 
if she is three years of age."
#4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
#5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."
#6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from 
a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made 
the wine unclean."
#7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of 
the world are not human beings but beasts."





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list