3 April 2024

[Dale Eastman]

Way too many of you are delusional fools. You believe un-truths as truths because you are not smart enough to think about and analyze what you have just had presented to you.

Unlike most of you, I do think about and analyze what has been presented to me.

A specific example was provided during my incarceration in DAY JAIL, Also known as public school. The specific example is these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Many of you will recognize those words from the text of The U.S. Declaration of Independence.

That "all men are created equal" is a set of words presenting a concept to think about and analyze.
What, exactly, was created equal? The penis sizes of men?
Did the patriarchy that wrote this self-evident truth intend to exclude women?

Perhaps a better understanding is: all HUmans are created equal.
What, exactly, was created equal? Perhaps that no human was created owning or having a right to own another human?

Another thing to think about and analyze: Those unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Right-to-Life includes a Right-to-Defend-your-Life. To quote a science fiction character, "When somebody tries to kill you, you try and kill 'em right back."

I'm sure the concept presented in the prior sentence will upset some of you delusional fools. (I have thought about and analyzed why this is happening. I'll explain later.)

The Right-to-Liberty is not that hard to comprehend. The best working definition of Liberty was written long ago by some old guy.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

I have had cowardly delusional fools argue against Liberty-Freedom because without law & government some people will just kill your family and rape your dog.

There have been governments since time immemorial. There have been laws against murder since time immemorial. There have been murders since time immemorial. What does this say about government and its anti-murder law? Laws against murder don't matter to those who don't murder. Laws against murder don't matter to murderers.

What, exactly, is this "pursuit of Happiness"? Wouldn't it be "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" that makes a human happy?

Repeating my quote of a science fiction character, "When somebody tries to kill you, you try and kill 'em right back." Government claims only it has a right to use force. Therefore government claims you don't have a right to try and kill 'em right back, When somebody tries to kill you.

Government laws against defending and protecting your life and your Right-to-Life is government violating its reason for existing. Those laws exist. Perhaps later I will present them to you. Then you will have evidence proving government violates its reason for existing.

Government deliberately lies to you. If you believe cops-police have any duty to protect you, You swallowed the lie.
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

Pottle is a person who asked Sheriff South for protection. The Sheriff did not provide the protection. The original lower court case was a suit for damages done to Pottle because the Sheriff did not provide specifically requested assistance and protection.

Where, in an action upon a sheriff's bond, the declaration did not charge the sheriff with a breach of his duty in the execution of any writ or process in which the real plaintiff was personally interested, but with a neglect or refusal to preserve the public peace, in consequence of which the plaintiff suffered great wrong and injury from the unlawful violence of a mob, the declaration did not set forth a sufficient cause of action against the sheriff and his sureties.
[...]
The breach alleged is, in substance,
"that while Pottle was engaged about his lawful business, certain evil-disposed persons came about him, hindered and prevented him, threatened his life, with force of arms demanded of him a large sum of money, and imprisoned and detained him for the space of four days, and until he paid them the sum of $2,500 for his enlargement."

That South, the sheriff, being present, the plaintiff, Pottle, applied to him for protection and requested him to keep the peace of the State of Maryland, he, the said sheriff, having power and authority so to do. That the sheriff neglected and refused to protect and defend the plaintiff and to keep the peace, wherefore, it is charged, "the sheriff did not well and truly execute and perform the duties required of him by the laws of said state," and thereby the said writing obligatory became forfeited and action accrued to the plaintiff.
[...]
The declaration in the case before us is clearly not within the principles of these decisions. It alleges no special individual right, privileges, or franchise in the plaintiff from the enjoyment of which he has been restrained or hindered by the malicious act of the sheriff, nor does it charge him with any misfeasance or nonfeasance in his ministerial capacity in the execution of any process in which the plaintiff was concerned. Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.

Read @ Justia

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. (Available at the Justia link.) The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.

There are other Supreme Court cases affirming that government, through its police offices and police officers have no duty to protect. This is directly in contradiction of government's claim that its purpose is to "to secure these rights,", specifically, the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.".