tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post114866602651108332..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Take the Fifth -- And Face Life Imprisonment Without a Trial William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-87366355847634336572016-05-08T08:58:00.138-06:002016-05-08T08:58:00.138-06:00The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns...The gun-grabbers insist we should turn in our guns and rely on the police to protect us from crime. Yet the court continue to rule that the police are under no obligation to protect the public.<br /><br />Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)<br /><br />Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)<br /><br />Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)<br /><br />http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/courtrulingsonpoliceprotection.php#axzz3Lulh8Tph<br /><br />COURT RULINGS THAT SAY POLICE DO NOT HAVE OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM VIOLENT CRIME <br /><br />In the United States, you can get a pizza delivered faster than you can get the police to come to your home! To serve but not protect!<br /><br />Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17670554270567592957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-71998955280957757222016-05-07T10:15:39.751-06:002016-05-07T10:15:39.751-06:00We all decry the illegal and unconscionable action...We all decry the illegal and unconscionable actions taken by those who deem themselves to be our masters, such as Rueter, but nobody makes any real attempt to correct such behavior. Seeing as how an uncorrupted government and justice system no longer exists, I see only one response likely to affect real change. When someone, such as Rueter, engages in such actions, and those actions have been verified, information regarding the act must be immediately and widely disseminated, followed by the targeted assassination of the offending official. Short of this, there can be no possibility of recourse for an oppressed society, and no consequence for corrupt officials. Barbaric, yes, but I defy anyone to propose a workable alternative in our current state of being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-25486280611940300552016-05-06T11:38:19.323-06:002016-05-06T11:38:19.323-06:00Use of the All Writs Act should be assailable. It...Use of the All Writs Act should be assailable. It is a fundamental rule of jurisprudence that later law supersedes earlier law. The later Bill of Rights says "...and no writs shall issue..." Why hasn't this been challenged on those grounds?rexxheadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12578166996312186309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-70045072776638020352016-05-06T05:41:50.807-06:002016-05-06T05:41:50.807-06:00It gets better...
http://www.nj.com/politics/inde...It gets better...<br /><br />http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/05/video_troopers_arrest_woman_for_remaining_silent_d.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-63568747596075399422016-05-05T19:19:47.816-06:002016-05-05T19:19:47.816-06:00Justice to The Wordsmith is like art to the eye of...Justice to The Wordsmith is like art to the eye of the beholder. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-84341641366123137632016-05-04T12:26:53.004-06:002016-05-04T12:26:53.004-06:00Stuff like this makes one wonder how "free&qu...Stuff like this makes one wonder how "free" the framers of the Constitution really intended the United States to be. I have often wondered if we might not have been better under the Articles of Confederation, or even perhaps, as a colony of England. <br /><br />It just seems very "off" to me that in the same year the Constitution went into effect, a law (the All Writs Act) was passed that virtually gives judges carte blanche to do whatever they want. A few years later, we got the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed by Congress <i>after</i> the Constitution was ratified.<br /><br />Thanks, Will, for the good work you do in bringing these issues to light.Michaelnoreply@blogger.com