How Is It That a Harvard Law School Grad Doesn't Know the Law of Citizens Arrest?

Last night, the nation saw yet another (there’s never a night that passes, actually) glimpse of the military industrial complex corporations’ Operation Mockingbird campaign to protect the totalitarian oligarchy being set up in the United States. This one took the form of another “expert analyst’s” commentary on the culpability of five persons who stood and watched as a burly and youthful car thief punched twenty-one times a ninety-one year old man.

The “expert,” one Jeffrey Toobin, stated categorically that no law requires action from a citizen in such circumstances. That, inasmuch as Toobin is purported by CNN and the television networks who hire him to be an attorney at law (Toobin earned his bachelor's degree from Harvard College and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review [!!!]), is a bald-faced lie, one made even more egregious by his credentials otherwise. The following is the legal definition – taken from Black’s Law Dictionary – of the crime codified as “Misprision of a Felony”:

“1. Maladministration of public office.
“2. Neglect in preventing or reporting a felony or treason by one not an accessory.
“3. An act of sedition against a government or the courts.”

Your attention is directed to definition two. Realizing that everything having to do with the rules by which we live nowadays requires assignment of some special and esoteric meaning to words and language, I submit that it would take more, even, than what has become the customary Supreme Court prestidigitation, terpsichory, and solecistic contortion to reach an interpretation different than the plain one where the term “misprision” is concerned.

Anyone who stands and watches a felony committed is a felon criminal.

More, all fifty states provide for and impose upon citizens the duty of citizen’s arrest. That I happen to know a bit more than most people on the subject is due that fact that I once wrote a book on Citizen’s Arrest, and it was, at least in part, the reason for my having acquired the sobriquet “Guerrilla Lawyer.”

A citizen's arrest is an arrest performed by a person acting as a civilian, as opposed to a sworn law enforcement officer. In common jurisdictions (the U.S. and everywhere law based on the English system of law is practiced), the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, when sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest

“Expert Analyst” Toobin also made reference to “vigilantes” in his cynical effort to further destruction of Jeffersonian government. From another on-line legal dictionary, this is the definition of that term:

“vigilante n. someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority (emphasis mine). In the 1800s groups of vigilantes dispensed "frontier justice" by holding trials of accused horse-thieves, rustlers and shooters, and then promptly hanging the accused if "convicted." A mother who shoots the alleged molester of her child is a vigilante (Hal’s note: provided, that is, she does not catch him in the act; then, she has the right and the duty to – at least - arrest him).

That Mr. Toobin is a liar is my opinion, of course; but inasmuch as one who purports and is purported to be a lawyer might be reasonably expected to know the law well enough to know something as basic and simple as the two definitions I have cited, I choose to believe he has deliberately given false legal advice to the public and nation. The question, as I have already noted, is why.

The further question is why he would do that. More, the answer bears directly and heavily on any number of similar televised pronouncements and dissimulations being heard on the media. Illegal immigration and related matters, for instance.

I might also remind everyone of a president who publicly and contemptuously flaunts the law, much in the manner of all his patrician kind everywhere (of course, as I have pointed out here again and again, law that punishes a person living on social security with the same fine as a billionaire is a plainly absurd as is Toobin’s disingenuous “analysis”).

But, as I am often wont to say, and do, I digress. Why would Toobin lie? That the CNN “analyst” is a liar has not only to do with something I wrote about years ago, it is something I bet my life on then, too. On the capitol steps in Denver, Colorado in 1987, I announced my reasons for having come to the state then being called in the nation’s prevaricating and dissimulating media “The Make My Day State.” I said plainly and in a manner unmistakable as is today’s media dishonesty that I would arrest any federal official caught in crime, and shoot or beat him to death in the process if necessary.

I threw down the gauntlet, in other words. Were I wrong, I had just handed federal felons who had already shown themselves so anxious for my demise as to shoot at and wound me from ambush the opportunity to accomplish their mission legally. More, my contentious announcement was widely debated, including that of night-time talk shows wherein lawyers calling were obliged to admit grudgingly my right to do just what I said. Even more, in the years to come the government betrayed the truth of what I had said that fateful night by first running for cover – including the total destruction of all records that might remotely have to do with me (that fact later confirmed by former IRS Historian Shelley Davis in her book “Unbridled Power”), and a U.S. District Court for Colorado ruling which sealed all records having to do with me.

“To do otherwise,” the court said, “would irreparably damage the tax collection system of the United States.”

The court, in so doing, protected federal officials as high as the White House from exposure, in the process having elevated tax collection to a matter of national security in order to avail the government of Freedom of Information Act exclusions having to do with the same. Even today (see my website page on the subject), the courts deny me the access to a legal system afforded even illegal aliens – to say nothing of the Constitution of the United States. There can be no rational doubt why.

Neither is the reason for the government’s panic – if repeated attempts at the murder of a citizen by his government represents anything more than panic, you tell me what it is – irrelevant here. The federal government was by this time aware that I had infiltrated it at all levels, and that I could prove felony crime by individuals throughout a system about whom my most extreme contentions have since been vindicated. The U.S. Government is, in fact, nothing more than a conspiracy of criminals. I was at the time of my radio discussions being instrumental in the creation of the Colorado Militia. In fact, I was also instrumental when members of the militia arrested as citizens two agents of the United States engaged in efforts to incite militiamen to commit actionable crimes having to do with weapons possession.

The arrested federal felons – while the court in question admitted the arrests were legal – were released by the court to which the militiamen had dutifully delivered them, still another example and proof of my point here; namely, that we have lost our democracy and nation of laws. The felons were federal and, therefore – like our criminal president - above the law.

The simple fact, and upshot of my activities, was that I would have the right and authority to do legally what amounted under the circumstances to overthrow of the nation’s federal government.

Let’s go back to the outset, and to the basics where our question is concerned. First, a citizen of the United States who sees a crime – in some states, the crime must be a felony – in commission, has the authority and duty to stop it by means of arrest (that’s what the word means, incidentally). The person arrested may be anyone. Let me say that again: anyone!

The law of arrest in all fifty states – and the powers known as police powers are reserved, I remind you, to the states and to the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments – entitles the arresting party to enlist the aid of fellow citizens, as many as is necessary to accomplish his arrest.

NOW do you see how one guy, me, could terrorize the entire federal government? Having said that, think further again – why would that be? Obviously, a government not engaged in widespread crime – like, for instance and among all the more obvious and publicized ones, selling our kids into sexual slavery to foreign potentates – would have no reason to fear citizens arrest.

Let’s back up again, back to the original reasons our nation was constituted as it was, and to the Bill of Rights Amendment none other than Thomas Jefferson considered the keystone of all civil rights. Let’s read it:

“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.”

Reminded that I am not licensed by any state to practice law, but that I am an ardent – so ardent as to be just about unimpeachable there – historian, let me point out that last: “or to the people.” It’s probably the most overlooked words in U.S. Law, buried as it is under all the smoke and mirrors and Toobin analyses the federal government can pay for. It means that the power to arrest – to stop in the act of crime – belongs to the citizen. In fact, the states derive their power to arrest from the individual, assisting him, in effect, in his prevention or arrest of crime.

The fact that this is misunderstood by almost everyone in our country is also singular in its implication. Cui bono? – to use another legal term – who would profit by that? Now, unless federal, Operation Mockingbird brain-washing has obliterated your mind, you’re starting to catch on.

And that is the reason for Mr. Toobin’s cynical – and sinister - prevarication last night.

So often have I been over this ground, arguing it in every forum imaginable over the last two decades, that I make still another discursive retrogression – to the term “vigilante.” We’ve heard that word a great deal lately, haven’t we? A “vigilante,” our definition said, is “someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority.” Check those last four words. If any citizen who sees a crime in progress – beating a helpless old man in order to steal his car is a crime, you know – is empowered to arrest, then how does doing so make him a “vigilante?”

Now we know what this is about. It’s about a military industrial complex corporation coup d’etat, an attempt – successful, so far – to seize control of our government and nation, repudiate all of both its way of life and Constitution, and set up a corporate oligarchy. It’s about seizing the nation’s information and news media in order to put the public in a behavioral straight-jacket, a virtual prison whose shackles are restraints placed on the mind rather than the body. Availing itself of ideologies like liberal and feminist humanism, and controlling the information and news media with the iron fist of Internal Revenue Service, by way of programs like Operation Mockingbird, the criminal conspiracy in Washington on the Potomac intends totalitarian dictatorship by the privileged few, government from the rich and powerful to the peasant servant, rather than from the constitutionally powerful individual to a public servant government.

“Deception,” observed CIA Counter-Intelligence Director James J. Angleton, “is a state of mind, and deception is the mind of the state.”

Don’t be deceived. This isn’t rocket science, and it is not difficult to know that no criminal wants to be arrested, stopped, while in the furtherance of his crime. Compare the other criminal conspiracy in progress at this time with that of the military industrial complex corporation. Indeed, this conspiracy happens – mirabile dictu – to be still another operation of the same coup d’etat conspirators. I speak, of course, of illegal immigration from Mexico. Listen to the language, observe the practices and behavior of the conspirators. Recall the term modus operandi, and recall, too, that it is a tried and trusted means using the criminal’s method to identify him.

Anyone, also, who seeks where the criminal is a Mexican to interfere with the crime in progress is a “vigilante.” You don’t, really, see a similarity – a linking one – between the way the federal government flaunts and ignores the law and the way criminal Mexicans, their supporters, and apologists do all but exactly the same thing? You don’t notice the way the federal government – including their godfather, who happens to be none other than the presidential head of the conspiracy that is the parent to the Mexican one – enjoys immunity to laws the citizen must obey, that in much the same way the illegal alien from Mexico enjoys, somehow, immunity everywhere to laws under which a citizen would pay heavy penalty?

Remarkable! Remarkable; and probably indicative of the fact that, as I said yesterday, you’re far too far gone to save. But then, if people like Mr. Toobin still find it profitable to maintain the Operation Mockingbird tactics and orchestrations, I suppose there must be some hope. Obviously, the coup d’etat conspirators of the corporate oligarchy who now rule believe the specious, only virtually real, democracy requires constant maintenance.

There are still some of us, after all, who remember the United States of American when it was still the “Land of the Free.”