Discretion in the Hands of Every Government Agent = Tyranny | Armstrong Economics

There has been an interesting case of an American Muslim woman who had her phone seized by border guards as she returned home to the United States from a trip to Switzerland. The guards just seized her phone and she had to file a lawsuit to get it returned after 120 days. Meanwhile, they refuse to confirm or deny that a copy of her phone was made and shared with any other agency. This is part of the problem with the rule of law – there is none! Government agents can do whatever they desire and it is always your burden to hopefully find a judge who will at least acknowledge you have any rights at all. Most people will think of various crimes by the British that led to the American Revolution. Then there was the No Taxation Without Representation slogan. But the act that perhaps began the Revolution was illegal search and seizure. The legal case that became the seminal beginning of the American Revolution was Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King’s Messengers, reported at length in 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029. This case was the start of the American Revolution and was also based upon an abuse of the king’s agents. The action, dated November 1762, was for trespassing and interfering with the plaintiff’s dwelling by breaking open his desks and boxes and searching and examining his papers. George III (b 1738; 1760-1820) became king in 1760. In February 1761, Parliament enacted the Writs of Assistance that was challenged in court in Boston, Massachusetts. These were writs that empowered, are no different today when agents can act at their discretion. The Writs of Assistance allowed the king’s agents to search anything they suspected. The defending lawyer James Otis (1725-1783) pronounced these writs were “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.” Otis warned that the king placed discretion in the hands of every agent to act as he desired. Nothing has changed for the government can do whatever it desires today and it is always the burden of the citizen to prove he has any rights whatsoever. John Adams (1735–1826; 2nd President 1797–1801) was there in the audience at that hearing that day. Adams was so moved by the four- hour speech of James Otis that he declared: “Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child independence was born.” While I was in New Jersey, twice going to work in the morning the road was blocked and the police were looking at every car. At first, you would think they were searching for a terrorist or a missing person or something you see on a TV show. No, the police of Marlton, New Jersey were arbitrarily stopping every car during rush hour and demanded your papers and identification. If you had then, including your insurance card, then you passed. If you were missing anything, they sent you to another line where they were writing tickets. This was an outright violation of the Fourth Amendment. An illegal search without probable cause. Being stopped during rush hour once was bad enough. They did it a second time. Marlton, New Jersey had the reputation for the worst police in the state. They wrote more ticket than any town and it was one giant money grab. A friend’s wife looked at her phone for Google Maps while at a red light. The cop waited for her to turn on the highway that they designated as a “safe corridor” which meant fines were doubled. She went to court to show she was not talking or texting. The corrupt judge found her guilty and said she was not allowed to even look at her phone. So the same thing on a piece of paper is ok. If on your phone its a $500 fine. What they do is outright illegals, but it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to claim you have any rights at all. This is our real crisis. There is no rule of law. They get to do whatever they want and we have the burden to argue what they did violates the law. This is why rarely will a cop ever be found guilty of even murder when killing someone. Judges will routinely argue they were justified because they THOUGHT their life was in danger. Twice I went to the airport to pick up non-Americans coming in. One was picking up a friend daughter from Quebec. Because I was picking her and her friend up and taking them to the hotel her father booked, they did not know the address where they were staying. They spoke primarily French. She was just 16 and traveling to see the history in Philadelphia. She handed her phone to the agent who then called me and asked if I was there to pick them up. He then asked if I spoke French because how would I communicate. I responded in French and asked him if he spoke the language. He said OK. I asked what is the problem. They were Canadian. His response was – “They are still aliens!” Another time I went to pick up an employee coming in from Ukraine. I was there for more than an hour. Everyone else had passed. Finally, a border guard brought them out and wanted to see me. I asked what is the problem? I thought they were concerned about people who did not leave? They had a 5-year business visa and came here frequently. He was just nasty but released them. When I asked what happened, I was told they searched everything and when they could find nothing, they called another agent and said here, maybe you can find something. There is really nothing you can do. The circle is complete. We have returned to the same position that started the whole thing and we once more face “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.”As the Writs of Assistance in the Entick case, because government agents can do whatever they desire and it is our burden to claim we had any right, the Constitution has been completely nullified. It exists only if we have the MONEY to hire lawyers who price themselves way too high and that ensures people are not defended. Otis warned that the king placed discretion in the hands of every agent to act as he desired.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/discretion-in-the-hands-of-every-government-agent-tyranny/

“Deeply Troubling” – Wall Street Journal Implores “What Was Bruce Ohr Doing?” | Zero Hedge

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department have continued to insist they did nothing wrong in their Trump-Russia investigation. This week should finally bring an end to that claim, given the clear evidence of malfeasance via the use of Bruce Ohr.
— Read on www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-17/deeply-troubling-wall-street-journal-implores-what-was-bruce-ohr-doing

Why Some People Can Break the Law and be Heroes | Armstrong Economics

QUESTION: Any reason why Stormy Daniels has not been charged with blackmail? Why should her attorney not be indicted as a co-conspirator? ANSWER: This is the problem with the pretend Rule of Law – it does not exist. The courts allow selective prosecution for they claim the there must be prosecutorial discretion because they cannot possibly indict everyone. Here is the formal explanation by a legal review which states that not even judges have the authority to ask why someone is indicted and another is not. Trust me, the system is corrupt, biased, and lends itself to exactly what we are witnessing. Cohen is indicted for giving money to girls which NOBODY has ever previously determined violate campaign money rules and Hillary who uses a private email and solicits money from the foreign government for her personal charity is above the law and never touched when it was an issue of selling her office of Secretary of State to the highest bidder. A prosecutor has SUPREME POWER and it is NEVER subjected to legal review. It is always about selective prosecution and you throw in politics and you get the most CORRUPT form of government ever devised. Prosecutorial discretion is a central component of the federal criminal justice system. Prosecutors decide which cases to pursue and plea bargains to accept, determining the fates of the vast majority of criminal defendants who choose not to stand trial. Prosecutors’ decisions are generally not, however, subject to judicial review. According to federal case law, the separation of powers doctrine is the “primary ground” upon which courts abstain from reviewing prosecutorial decisions. The constitutional separation of powers doctrine does not adequately account for expansive prosecutorial discretion. In tracing the federal case law on prosecutorial discretion to the eighteenth century, one can identify a connection between the modern theory of prosecutorial discretion and a writ of English criminal procedure that substantially predated the American separation of powers doctrine. id/pg2 SETON HALL CIRCUIT REVIEW The Supreme Court has recognized that prosecutorial discretion can really destroy the economy because there is no possible way for you to know if you are violating any law when it is purely discretion. There have been a number of recent Supreme Court cases why the issue faced by the court has been to deal with the interpretation of white collar crimes such as bribery, honest services fraud, and obstruction of justice. The Supreme Court cannot attack the problem by calling it an abuse of discretion so the approach has been to interpret the statutes extremely narrowly to reduce the problem of charging discretion by prosecutors. Hence, they have been interpreting criminal statutes very narrowly because there is no possible way we can trust prosecutors to exercise sound judgment or not to act corruptly. A competitor could be paying bribes to a prosecutor and you are NOT even allowed to investigate a prosecutor. Justice Kennedy went as far as to take the argument that the Court really should no longer think that prosecutorial discretion as a viable principle is a free society. It opens the door for pure corruption as we are starting to witness. The case was Yates, which was involving the law to go after corporate officers after Enron that prosecutors used to prosecute a Florida fisherman, John L. Yates, for throwing overboard a batch of fish that had been caught illegally because they were allegedly too small, and he wound up with thirty days in jail. ANy act that a prosecutor can twist into a violation of a statue that had nothing to do with what you were doing becomes a tool of tyranny. The charging decisions in Yates, in particular, may be what led the Justices openly to question whether prosecutors should continue to be entrusted with the same degree of discretion. Cohen has NOT actually violated any law. He pled to an indictment by prosecutors who neither have to prove the law as they interpret is valid or if it can apply to pay two girls actually violates campaign financing. Is this just like Yates and his fish? The problem we have is that prosecutors can do whatever they want. They get to destroy your life, throw you in prison, and the burden is always on you to prove you have any rights at all. Like Yates, it takes a very long-term and a TON of money to get to the Supreme Court who then says you were correct after all. They can throw you in jail and you can be killed pending a trial just to be heard on your rights. The system of justice does not exist and prosecutorial discretion means we have ZERO rights whatsoever. Stormy Daniels is a tool. You can bet she is not paying for lawyers. This is a political case to overthrow Trump and as long as they are on the same side as the Deep State, discretion means they can break the law and never be touched like Hillary.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/why-some-people-can-break-the-law-and-be-heroes/

Liberty and justice fo some