Missouri: A Taste OF What's Coming For Invaders

[General of Darkness]

The Missouri State Legislature is unusually innovative and strong. In addition to laws already
passed, legislators are discussing means by which Missouri would retain all taxes collected
by the State, forwarding to the federal government only what is calculated to be their due.
Should be the law for the whole country. America is sick of financing Obama's destruction
of our country.
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/from-ozarks-sentinel


The "Show Me" state has done it again.

(There needs to be more publicity showing how Missouri has dealt with the illegal aliens
in their state.)

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English
as the official language of Missouri. In November, 2008, nearly 90% voting in favor! Thus English
became the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri. No individual may demand government services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008 a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the
person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement offices receive specific training
with respect to enforcement of federal immigration laws.

In Missouri illegal immigrants do NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps
and health care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri 's public institutions of higher education
do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the United States .

All post-secondary institutions of higher education must annually certify to the Missouri Dept.
of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are
unlawfully living in the U S A .

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri
has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem. Missouri has made it clear that
illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in the state and they will certainly NOT receive public benefits
at the expense of Missouri taxpayers!

So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention?

Answer: There are no Mexican illegals in Missouri to demonstrate...

Missouri's approach to the problem of illegal immigration appears to be more advanced,
sophisticated, strict and effective than anything to date in Arizona. Do the loonies in San
Francisco, or the White House appreciate what Missouri has done? When are our fearless
President and his dynamic Attorney General going to take action to try to require Missouri
to start accepting illegal immigrants once again? Fat chance. They can pass all the laws
they want. But America is no longer listening. The revolt is spreading. And if this communist
government persists in its treasonous actions it will force a bloody civil war. Americans have
had enough. One way or the other, the gravy train for illegals is over. Time for them to go home.

[midnight rambler]

Missouri is also the only state where you can end up in prison for years for repeated infractions of being caught behind the wheel without a state issued Driver License.

[crazychicken]

Two thumbs up for Missouri!

CC

[Awoke]

Missouri is also the only state where you can end up in prison for years for repeated infractions of being caught behind the wheel without a state issued Driver License.



And how do you feel about that, when considering some states have a 3-strike rule that could land you with an extended stay in jail for merely possessing a gram of weed?

[Twisted Titan]

They way how they will get the laws changed is that it will be a coordinated assualt against all incumbents

Most will keep there seats ...but not all

And newly elected will hit the ground running spreading the wealth of the taxpayer on the illegals.

It will spread like the T Virus in Resident Evil.


T

[palani]

Missouri is as messed up as any of the other 49 several States.

http://i51.tinypic.com/21ju74m.jpg


The cybercode "this state" is a term indicating the FEDERAL ZONE that was unconstitutionally extended over "the state". These same legislators that are being lauded for being "hard" on undocumented aliens should also decorate the nearest oak tree for treason.

[palani]

Here is another Missouri statute code section

http://i51.tinypic.com/dbnq4i.jpg

Note specifically the last sentence:

This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water.

Until you learn to read law this might appear to be insignificant but notice one thing: "THIS STATE" includes No People. How can you write a criminal code that applies only to land and water and the air space above land and water? Are these entities UNDOCUMENTED as well?

[Fortyone]

More drivel,Why dont you post something where a person actually has a legal victory over these laws? Oh thats right, they arent really laws. :oo-->

[midnight rambler]

Missouri is also the only state where you can end up in prison for years for repeated infractions of being caught behind the wheel without a state issued Driver License.



And how do you feel about that, when considering some states have a 3-strike rule that could land you with an extended stay in jail for merely possessing a gram of weed?


I feel that fascists know no bounds.

[midnight rambler]

More drivel,Why dont you post something where a person actually has a legal victory over these laws? Oh thats right, they arent really laws. :oo-->


You're precisely right. The reason they aren't laws is because they're public policy statutes.

[Fortyone]

More drivel,Why dont you post something where a person actually has a legal victory over these laws? Oh thats right, they arent really laws. :oo-->


You're precisely right. The reason they aren't laws is because they're public policy statutes.


Yes IAFIAM, they are, and they will arrest you,convict you,sentence you and jail you for them,all the while youll be screaming bloody murder all the way to the clink. there is law in theory,and law in reality.All the tongue twisting you do will be useless.

[palani]

More drivel,Why dont you post something where a person actually has a legal victory over these laws? Oh thats right, they arent really laws. :oo-->

I post them as I see them. If you have an argument why not present it?

[palani]

they will arrest you,convict you,sentence you and jail you for them,all the while youll be screaming bloody murder all the way to the clink. there is law in theory,and law in reality.All the tongue twisting you do will be useless.
I see you have decided that education is too expensive. Let us know how ignorance works out for you.

[Fortyone]

they will arrest you,convict you,sentence you and jail you for them,all the while youll be screaming bloody murder all the way to the clink. there is law in theory,and law in reality.All the tongue twisting you do will be useless.
I see you have decided that education is too expensive. Let us know how ignorance works out for you.



Typical,no actual response,just an insult,yes that proves your case, how about proof of a victory? :oo-->

[midnight rambler]

More drivel,Why dont you post something where a person actually has a legal victory over these laws? Oh thats right, they arent really laws. :oo-->

I post them as I see them. If you have an argument why not present it?


The ignorant are incapable of debating any issue they haven't a clue about. Ignorance is bliss, which is why the ignorant depend upon the state to create their reality for them. Knowledge is power, yet power frightens them. They prefer being told what to do and when to do it by those to whom they've ceded their birthright of self-determination.

[Fortyone]

More drivel,Why dont you post something where a person actually has a legal victory over these laws? Oh thats right, they arent really laws. :oo-->

I post them as I see them. If you have an argument why not present it?


The ignorant are incapable of debating any issue they haven't a clue about. Ignorance is bliss, which is why they depend upon the state to create their reality for them. Knowledge is power, yet power frightens them. They prefer being told what to do and when to do it by those to whom they've ceded their birthright of self-determination.



Again,no proof of victory,just more rambling drivel :oo-->

[palani]

Typical,no actual response,just an insult,yes that proves your case, how about proof of a victory? :oo-->


Do you consider ignorance to be an insult? Actually it is an entirely legal concept. Below is a part of how Bouvier defines it circa 1856


IGNORANCE. The want of knowledge.

2. Ignorance is distinguishable from error. Ignorance is want of knowledge; error is the non-conformity or opposition of our ideas to the truth. Considered as a motive of our actions, ignorance differs but little from error. They are generally found together, and what is said of one is said of both.

3. Ignorance and error, are of several kinds. 1. When considered as to their object, they are of law and of fact. 2. When examined as to their origin, they are voluntary or involuntary, 3. When viewed with regard to their influence on the affairs of men, they are essential or non-essential.

Education generally cures the want of knowledge but ignorance must still persist despite education. For example, ignorance of a fact. Say you married a woman not knowing she was already married. You are not guilty of any crime because ignorance of a fact is not criminal. In a sense you paid for your education by the school of hard knocks. You can become educated this way BUT IT IS A DARNED HARD WAY TO LEARN.

I suspect you will eventually learn if you live long enough but be prepared to take some hard knocks along the way.

[midnight rambler]

Victory is measured by not being told what to do and when to do it on a daily basis, or even a monthly or yearly basis. Did you pay your protection money to that insurance company this month, or have you set it up on an automatic debit from your bank account?

[palani]

I'm still here. Isn't that a victory?

[Fortyone]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.

[midnight rambler]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.


They're not laws, they're public policy statutes and people defeat them every day. The reason you don't get to see this is because you don't travel in those circles. The state has you locked into that mindset of yours. Unless and until you break out of this mindset you will never see the remedies available to you.

I assert that the fools are those who unquestioningly and obediently do what they're told to do when told to do it. The most insufferable of these fools are the ones who complain about their circumstances yet don't lift a finger to do anything about it.

[palani]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-prosecutor-grimaced/

Though I don't expect you to have the ability to read this and understand where or when the victory actually occurred.


If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.
I would admit of being a fool if I though that the BOARD can make any assumptions at all.

[palani]

Unless and until you break out of this mindset you will never see the remedies available to you.


Bingo. If you can define no trespass then there is no remedy available.

[Fortyone]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.


They're not laws, they're public policy statutes and people defeat them every day. The reason you don't get to see this is because you don't travel in those circles. The state has you locked into that mindset of yours. Unless and until you break out of this mindset you will never see the remedies available to you.


And you can argue that fact until your keyboard disintegrates,but until you show PROOF of a precedent, your point is moot.

[midnight rambler]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.


They're not laws, they're public policy statutes and people defeat them every day. The reason you don't get to see this is because you don't travel in those circles. The state has you locked into that mindset of yours. Unless and until you break out of this mindset you will never see the remedies available to you.


And you can argue that fact until your keyboard disintegrates,but until you show PROOF of a precedent, your point is moot.


If you weren't ignorant on the matter, then you'd know that the cult of the black robe never allows these cases to get published. If a case doesn't get published, then there is no precedent to reference. It's really a very good system for them, they've worked out many of the kinks.

You don't know what you don't know.

[Fortyone]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-prosecutor-grimaced/

Though I don't expect you to have the ability to read this and understand where or when the victory actually occurred.


If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.
I would admit of being a fool if I though that the BOARD can make any assumptions at all.





No,that link has no proof of any victory,Just someones opinion on what an accused person should use,Predicting his failure due to his lack of oratory.No proof of a tried case.

[Fortyone]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.


They're not laws, they're public policy statutes and people defeat them every day. The reason you don't get to see this is because you don't travel in those circles. The state has you locked into that mindset of yours. Unless and until you break out of this mindset you will never see the remedies available to you.


And you can argue that fact until your keyboard disintegrates,but until you show PROOF of a precedent, your point is moot.


If you weren't ignorant on the matter, then you'd know that the cult of the black robe never allows these cases to get published. If a case doesn't get published, then there is no precedent to reference. It's really a very good system for them, they've worked out many of the kinks.

You don't know what you don't know.



so then you have no proof.

[midnight rambler]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.


They're not laws, they're public policy statutes and people defeat them every day. The reason you don't get to see this is because you don't travel in those circles. The state has you locked into that mindset of yours. Unless and until you break out of this mindset you will never see the remedies available to you.


And you can argue that fact until your keyboard disintegrates,but until you show PROOF of a precedent, your point is moot.


If you weren't ignorant on the matter, then you'd know that the cult of the black robe never allows these cases to get published. If a case doesn't get published, then there is no precedent to reference. It's really a very good system for them, they've worked out many of the kinks.

You don't know what you don't know.



so then you have no proof.


And you have no knowledge. If you remain locked into this mindset of yours you will be pwned by your corporate masters indefinitely.

[palani]

No,that link has no proof of any victory,Just someones opinion on what an accused person should use,Predicting his failure due to his lack of oratory.No proof of a tried case.

I believe I mentioned that you would have a difficult time finding a victory. However, when a prosecutor has expended several years and half a million dollars to throw you in prison and suddenly backs down on all charges there is something of a victory present.

Think of it as a high stakes poker game. If Adask had been convicted and later, on appeal, the conviction was reversed based upon his 1st amendment religious argument, there would now be a citeable case from the appeals board. At least 90% of prisoners are incarcerated on drug charges. This would be several millions of prisoners whose lawyers could now file appeals for them based upon 1st amendment religious freedom.

The stakes suddenly became too large and the case gets dropped. Therein lies VICTORY. [Although a better victory would have occurred if events had played out with the conviction ].

I don't doubt that you can find no victory here. You don't strike me as anyone who is able to rationalize logically.

[palani]

They're not laws, they're public policy statutes and people defeat them every day.

True. The government lost the authority to enact public law when they decided to discard stare decisis in the 1930s. Public policy is just plain evil.

[Bigjon]

You both are avoiding the question, show some PROOF of someone defeating these laws ,by your legal theory.If you cant simply do that,The board must assume you are both liars or fools.


They're not laws, they're public policy statutes and people defeat them every day. The reason you don't get to see this is because you don't travel in those circles. The state has you locked into that mindset of yours. Unless and until you break out of this mindset you will never see the remedies available to you.


And you can argue that fact until your keyboard disintegrates,but until you show PROOF of a precedent, your point is moot.


If you weren't ignorant on the matter, then you'd know that the cult of the black robe never allows these cases to get published. If a case doesn't get published, then there is no precedent to reference. It's really a very good system for them, they've worked out many of the kinks.

You don't know what you don't know.


http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3495

Thorborne Richardson: The American Legal System is a Fraud

The governing philosophies that rule the legal system are: (a) “legal realism” by which is meant that the judge decides whom he wants to prevail (or who “should” prevail as the legal theorists would claim, not wanting to let the cat out of the bag that the judge is not a philosopher king and is likely to rule for his former law partner or for the utility companies); and (b) “critical legal studies” which is an basically a Marxist theory that mirrors “legal realism” but is even nastier because the criteria by which the judge is supposed to decide who should prevail is based on which litigant belongs to the “victim class” and which one belongs to the “oppressor class.”

These two philosophies work very well upon a foundation of the “common law system” which we in Anglo-Saxon countries “enjoy” as opposed to the code system most European countries use.

When I was in law school, the professors would tout the benefits of the common law system especially its “flexibility.”

What has happened is that on most issues there are contradictory so-called “precedents” from which the judge can choose much like an artist chooses which color to use from his palette.

I followed the cases of several White dissidents who were prosecuted in trumped up claims that they incited someone else to commit a crime. (The SPLC’s Morris Dees specializes in such cases and such claims.)

Some decades ago a White businessman won a lawsuit against the NAACP arising out of a boycott of White-owned stores in a small town in Mississippi. The local Blacks had ignored the NAACP’s calls for the boycott. Enraged by the failure of the brothers and sisters to obey instructions, the NAACP sent the brother of Medger Evans to speak in the local Black churches.

In his sermons Evans warned the local Blacks that the NAACP was going to be taking down the names of Blacks who shopped with White merchants and that they were “going to break your necks.”

Sure enough the houses of Blacks who didn’t obey were burned down.

This was the case of Claiburn Hardware vs. NAACP.

The U.S. Supreme Court indignantly overturned the judgment against the NAACP and said that the 1st Amendment protected such speech. In order for speech to constitute an incitement and to give rise to liability the speech had to be a direct and immediate incitement.

This “precedent” has been cited by attorneys defending White activists over and over again. Never has any Judge cited it or relied on it. Instead, the Judges have chosen other precedents and have allowed Dees to get judgments against White activists whose statements really did not threaten any violence at all. Dees and his witnesses were allowed to deconstruct the text of the statements and to explain to the jury that when a White racist tells an audience “we are non-violent” and things like this, that such statements are “code” for “go out and commit crimes.”

The fact that not one court has ever cited Claiborne Hardware vs. NAACP in cases brought against White activists even if only to distinguish it shows just how fixed the system is.

The icing on the cake is a little known “rule of court” in the federal courts which allows the Judges to make a ruling and include in the ruling a holding that the decision will not be precedent on any other case and to order that the decision never be published!

This was done in the Georgia case of Carver vs. State so the federal courts could uphold a kangaroo court conviction of a Klansman in which — among numerous other outrages in the conduct of the trial — the trial judge denied the defendant the right to subpoena evidence in violation of Mapp vs. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment.

Almost no lay Americans are aware of this unspeakable star chamber rule and the vast majority of lawyers don’t know about it either.

There was a proposal a few years ago to change this rule and the federal judges vehemently opposed taking their “discretion” away from them.

The American justice system is held in awe by its victims who haven’t got a clue about how it works. Its filth and corruption are made all the worse by its hypocrisy.

Obviously, there are many judges who are fine men and women and do follow the law.

But they are very much in the minority.

As Montesquieu said there is no crueler tyranny than one in which the forms of the law and justice are maintained without the reality.

Thorborne Richardson is an attorney.

[palani]

As Montesquieu said there is no crueler tyranny than one in which the forms of the law and justice are maintained without the reality.


It is not just the courts that are corrupt. The clerk and sheriff along with the courts are involved in conspiracy worthy of a RICO class action suit.

I attempted to bail out a prisoner several years ago. Paid with postal money order to the Clerk of Court, received the paperwork to release the prisoner and delivered the same to the sheriff. The clerk had neglected to date time stamp the document (deliberately) and I was told by the deputy that the prisoner could not be released until he agreed to booking. I figured out later that the lack of the date time stamp permitted the sheriff to hold the prisoner until the end of the day and if there had been the proper time stamped upon the document they would not have this flexibility.

As I left the sheriff office three city police cars buzzed around me as I walked back to my car. One police car even stopped in the middle of the street and the thug behind the wheel just stared. [The guy in jail had attempted a citizens arrest on the county treasurer].

Now do you really expect these type of people to lawfully handle the undocumented immigrant problem?