MM

[Dale Eastman]

I'm calling you out for your words and a discussion of what you actually intend to present with them.

I am presenting YOUR words in the order I find suits me best.

➽ I only hope it will convince others how wrong you are. Hatred is not conductive to logical or emphatic thought progression sir.

I accept your challenge Sir.

➽ You should read that document [US CONstitution] sometime. The privilege of operating a motor vehicle is not a right. And traveling too fast in a 2000-3000 or larger metal vehicle places others in danger unnecessarily.

I have.

You should try reading Lysander Spooner's 1875 writing "NO TREASON - THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY"
https://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm

As I stated, I have read the CONstitution when I was being brainwashed and inculcated during the 12 years I was incarcerated in a Government Indoctrination Center. You know of these buildings and entities as "Public Schools".

And quite often since then. My logical analysis of those particular words has brought me into alignment with Lysander Spooner.

➽ But if Cops were smart they would retire or change careers before that happens because of people like you. And BTW only the bad cops will be left and unlike the good cops they won’t hesitate to shoot you to death and I get the feeling they would win that disagreement

Actually, if cops were smart, the would NOT be hired in the first place.

Smarts Discrimination

U.S District Court rules, It's okay to discriminate based on too much intelligence.

⚠ ⚠ ⚠
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    No. 99-9188
    Robert Jordan, Plaintiff,
    -vs-
    City of New London and Keith Harrigan, Defendants.

    Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Connecticut constitutions stemming from Defendants’ hiring practice. Plaintiff was denied a job opportunity because he had scored higher than average on a written examination used to screen applicants and, as a result, was deemed overqualified for the position.
    [...]
    On March 16, 1996, Plaintiff took a written test for the position of entry level police officer given by the Law Enforcement Council of Connecticut, Inc.[...]

    In the fall of 1996, Plaintiff learned that New London was hiring police officers. He requested an interview with Keith Harrigan, the Assistant City Manager in charge of personnel. Id. at P 10, 11. Mr. Harrigan informed Plaintiff that he was ineligible because he scored too high on the written test.

     For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
     Complete case text at AELE http://aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html

    2000 U.S. App. Lexis 22195 (Unpublished)
 ⛔ ⛔ ⛔

You just have to be smart enough to threaten people with a gun.

➽ Police work by definition often consists of crime prevention

Cops are not the good guys here.

No Duty To Protect

The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔

In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.

The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.⛔

"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
⚠ A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.⛔

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
⚠ We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.⛔

The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.

Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
⚠ Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. ⛔

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?

➽ A cop makes a mistake they go to jail and their families lose everything even if no one dies. That’s the price of being human but being held to a higher standard than anyone else.

What type of personality do you think would want a job where you can order people around, point guns at them if they don't obey your commands, and kill them if they decide they're not going to go gently into a cage?

So part of the job is threatening people and you don't think they should be held to a higher standard?

➽ The police are not your enemy , the people of wealth and privilege who use the media to drive a narrative that deflects from their true intentions are.

Whose true intentions? People of wealth and privilege or cops? Is it the people of wealth and privilege us such to shape laws to their benefit or is it a person with a car so old it stinks and needs an air freshener?

➽ It’s very obvious that none of you have ever been LEO’s

That's because I don't want a job giving me impunity to point guns at people committing no crimes.

Are you implying you have been a LEO?

Law Enforcement Officer. Commissioned killers to insure politician's opinions are obeyed

[Dale Eastman]

I can not dispute those statutes they exist and are a matter of public record.

But I do not agree with them. They are not why I entered into police work, but are part of the reason I left the profession. I don’t believe that the Majority of LEO’s enter the profession to be commissioned killers to insure politicians opinions are obeyed.

Which is why more and more police and agencies are openly stating they would not comply with unconstitutional laws. Cops are your Niebors , live in your towns and share the same beliefs most of you do. I stand by my statement that cops are not your enemy. But you go right ahead and laser focus on police.

While a communist inspired left leaning government steals the last vestiges of freedom while destroying the one document that holds them accountable.

They won’t take your guns today because it would be illegal, so tomorrow they will pass a law that makes taking your guns legal.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Because I was notified about a reaction on my post, I scrolled down to see if you had replied. Most times when you click a reply to a comment, FecesBook will automatically insert a tag which then notifies the person you are responding to. Most time. Not all the time. If you start a tag of a non friend, start with the @ symbol then type the name, look for the matching icon and click. Works most times. Should work always for me. My settings are set to allow tagging.

Thank you for admitting that you used to be a LEO. I won't verbally beat on you for that. Especially since you no longer are.

I was specific regarding which of your words I was taking you to task for. I have my own narrative and agenda motivating me to give you a hard time.

That motivation is NOT because of you having been a cop. The motivation is because of what you still believe about the CONstitution (sic).

➽ I stand by my statement that cops are not your enemy.

Sorry sir, I reject that claim and belief with supporting reasons to follow.

Quoting Dr. Robert Higgs:
⚠⚠⚠
The "good/bad cop” question can be disposed of decisively. We need only consider the following:
i. Every cop has agreed, as part of his job, is to enforce laws; all of them.
ii. Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked.
iii. Therefore, every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer of laws that are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked.

There are no good cops.
⛔⛔⛔

This focus is on cops because they are LEO's. That's their job. They enforce laws.

Their charge of duty, and their right to enforce law, comes from laws themselves.

Allow me a little digression and a detour:
If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death.

If you vote for a politician to become a Mayor, Governor, or President,
You vote for a person to enforce the rules made by Legislators.
You vote for somebody to make people obey or kill people if they resist.

Thus, If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.

Carlo Gambino or Vito Genovese.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
Choose your next criminal syndicate extortion ruler.
🚫
End digression.

Legislation?
Making comply or die rules...

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
∝∝∝
1. A chain of authority has a subordinate end.
2. A chain of authority has a superior end.
3. Which may also be called a sovereign end.
4. The person allegedly holding a position of superior authority is presumed to have a higher claim on a person in a position of subordinate authority.
5. This also includes a presumed higher claim on the subordinate's property.
6. For comparison, a plantation owner's ownership of a cotton picking slave was presumed to have had a higher claim on the slave than the slave had over him or her self, property, and labor.
7. Any unagreed or forced relationship of superior and inferior authority is by definition: enslavement.
8. The alleged authority of those calling themselves government hinges upon The Consent Of The Governed.
9. Governmentalists and Statists presume and pretend everybody has consented.
10. This belief is excoriated just by stating: I DO NOT CONSENT!
11. There are some Governmentalists and Statists who will claim that acquiescence to the laws (politician's opinions) is consent. They are wrong.
12. For example, I always used seat belts before there were laws (politician's opinions) commanding I always wear seat belts. To properly protest that law, I would have to do something that lessens my survival odds in a collision - Not wear the seat belt.
13. Examination of alleged consent finds that it was never actually given, only usurped or fabricated. I'll come back to this.
14. Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have? Well... If they don't have it...
15. Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else? Claiming you were born with authority over me is a declaration of war with me. You have been warned!
16. The alleged authority of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances is presumed to come from the legislators.
17. This means the alleged authority imbued in the written words of law (politician's opinions) is the authority that the legislators (politicians) are alleged to have over everyone else.
18. Legislators (politicians) are not born with this alleged authority over everyone else, therefore this alleged authority must be delegated to the legislators (politicians).
19. The main source of this alleged authority is presumed to come with the office.
20. The other part of this alleged authority comes from the selection of a person to hold the office.
21. If you do not have authority over me, then you can not select any person to have an authority over me. You can only select a person to have authority over you.
22. Voting for a person to hold the office of legislator does NOT give him authority over me unless I also voted for that politician.
23. Prove I've ever voted for any present officeholder. (You can't because I didn't.)
24. If appointed to an office, if the person doing the appointing does not have authority over me, then the delegation of authority and the appointee can not have authority over me.
25. The person doing the appointing was put into their office the same way... By appointment or by vote. The same failure to have authority over me still exists.
26. Returning to the alleged authority of the office. These offices were created by people who were not born with authority over me.
27. Therefore these offices do not have authority over me.
28. Focusing on the federal level constitution, also known as the highest law in the land, Those long dead authors of the constitution did not have authority over me.
29. Therefore, the constitution has no authority over me.
30. And neither do the offices created by the constitution.
ΩΩΩ

I've omitted a few of your points because you do appear to be aware of what non-liberty looks like.