Collusion
In a brief introduction, I would like to show the court of popular opinion that many of today's laws, written to give people freedom from certain oppressive behaviors, as well as protect the average citizen from predatory circumstances that might endanger their well being, are in fact being used to guise conduct throughout law enforcement, cities, and states, to actually create oppression and endanger the lives of every citizen within modern society. Most citizens are completely unaware of the current circumstances or are ideologically subverted by popular media and their own fear, therefore not fully in recognition of the current affairs that more recently have been brought into the forefront of mass awareness. Popular media outlets as well as politicians though have been purposefully either misleading citizens to the dangers, or have completely failed to noticed the overwhelming evidence and conduct of their own governmental behaviors.
In this section I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these laws are predatory in nature and have no relevant necessity. For my demonstration I will use two current laws being used to intimidate, and that also give predators a means with which to manipulate current opinion and therefore the ability to exploit.
The first of these laws is the basic anti-panhandling statutes being used throughout California currently. Note that these laws are not necessary, and in fact there are already laws that prohibit specific conduct that these statutes supposedly protect citizens from.
Basic overview of statutes guidelines:
In 1991, a Federal District Court declared California's panhandling statute, Section
647(c) of the Penal Code unconstitutional, but Cali1brnia Appellate Courts have not yet issued
definitive rulings on this issue. Courts have held that panhandling is an expression of free
the U.S Constitution. The Courts have stated
speech guaranteed under the 1st Amendment of
that any laws prohibiting panhandling that are vague or over broad, that target a particular
message, that do not serve a significant government interest and do not provide for alternative
channels of communication are unconstitutional. The courts have held that the conduct which
may be regulated is the manner in which the panhandling is done.
Many municipalities have adopted narrowly-tailored panhandling and solicitation statutes
which sought to comply with court precedent, while also addressing the problems their
communities were facing. Court decisions have upheld ordinances restricting solicitation based
on the premise they do not prohibit all panhandling; they merely establish time, place, and
manner restrictions on panhandling activities. Staff conducted research of local ordinances
already in place relevant to aggressive panhandling issues and vehicle-related solicitation.
Although local ordinances have been passed and adopted by their respective City Councils few
have been challenged in court.
Under standard First Amendment analysis, courts have determined that restrictions on
soliciting in a public forum must satisfy four requirements in order to pass constitutional
challenge. The proposed ordinance meets all four of these elements.
1. The ordinance is content neutral - it is not intended to target a particular message or
exchange of ideas; it applies to all solicitors equally, regardless of whether they are
soliciting donations for a religious group, promoting a school fund-raiser, or soliciting
personal donations in order to purchase food.
2. The ordinance is narrowly tailored - it is not vague or over broad, and it provides clear
definitions of terminology used. It is aimed strictly at solicitation posing traffic hazards,
aggressive solicitation and solicitation where it is particularly intrusive. It reaches only
conduct that is harassing, coercing, or intimidating.
3. The ordinance serves a significant governmental interest - the activity of soliciting from
occupants of vehicles distracts drivers from their primary duty to watch traffic and
potential hazards in the roadway, to observe all traffic control signals or warnings, and to
move through the city's streets and intersections safely. Panhandling also impedes the
flow of traffic and obstructs the public's free flow of travel. Additionally, "aggressive
panhandling" controls are aimed at protecting the public from intimidation. Federal courts
have found these interests to be legitimate.
4. The ordinance leaves ample alternative channels of communication - it does not prohibit
all solicitations, it merely places limitations on solicitations that involve traffic issues and
public safety. There are numerous times and locations where these individuals can solicit
in a non-confrontational manner.
The above is that which a few cities are passing around to each other before imposing a new panhandling statute. Now I will show you statutes already in place that target specific conduct and which nullify the necessity of these statutes.
California penal code 646.9 reads as follows:
(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly
follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who
makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in
reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her
immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that
fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a
temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in
effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against
the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years.
(c) (1) Every person who, after having been convicted of a felony
under Section 273.5, 273.6, or 422, commits a violation of
subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail
for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or
by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years.
(2) Every person who, after having been convicted of a felony
under subdivision (a), commits a violation of this section shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five
years.
(d) In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the
sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this
section to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290.006.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means engages in
a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person
that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person,
and that serves no legitimate purpose.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means
two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short,
evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected
activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
(g) For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a
verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of
an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern
of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically
communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place
the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for
his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, and made with
the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the
person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or
her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to
prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the
threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall
not be a bar to prosecution under this section. Constitutionally
protected activity is not included within the meaning of "credible
threat."
(h) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic
communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones,
cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers.
"Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined
in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.
(i) This section shall not apply to conduct that occurs during
labor picketing.
(j) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a
sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section,
it shall be a condition of probation that the person participate in
counseling, as designated by the court. However, the court, upon a
showing of good cause, may find that the counseling requirement shall
not be imposed.
(k) (1) The sentencing court also shall consider issuing an order
restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, that may
be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the
intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be
based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the
probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and
his or her immediate family.
(2) This protective order may be issued by the court whether the
defendant is sentenced to state prison, county jail, or if imposition
of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.
(l) For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any
spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or
affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly
resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months,
regularly resided in the household.
(m) The court shall consider whether the defendant would benefit
from treatment pursuant to Section 2684. If it is determined to be
appropriate, the court shall recommend that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation make a certification as provided in
Section 2684. Upon the certification, the defendant shall be
evaluated and transferred to the appropriate hospital for treatment
pursuant to Section 2684.
Clearly with this statute we have eliminated aggressive behavior in all it's many forms. However, within California they also want panhandling laws that in essence reach the same exact conduct. Obviously we don't need to repeat law more than once for it to be effective, and so there must be ulterior motive within the infrastructure of state and city governments that are far reaching even beyond the point of legitimate law enforcement stratagem. Now I will give you an example of the far reaching political aspect of a city panhandling ordinance that is in reality to prohibit a specific political message, one of poverty and how much poverty there is, that is used to guise a city that purposefully creates poverty and doesn't want the public to see what they are up to.
San Luis Obispo, California's ordinance reads:
9.06.010 Definitions.
A. General Definition. For the purposes of this chapter, an individual (solicitor) coerces, threatens, hounds, or intimidates another (solicitee) when:
1. The solicitor’s conduct would cause a reasonable person in the position of the solicitee to fear for his or her safety; or
2. The solicitor intentionally blocks the path of the solicitee; or
3. The solicitor persists in following the solicitee closely, while the solicitor continues to demand money or other thing of value, after the solicitee has informed the solicitor by words or conduct that the solicitee does not want to give money or other thing of value to the solicitor to which the person demanding payment is not entitled under law.
B. “Solicit” means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words, bodily gestures, signs or other means.
C. “Solicitor” is one who solicits as defined in subsection (B) of this section.
D. “Fear for Safety” Defined. The following facts, among others, may be considered in deciding whether a reasonable person would be caused to fear for his or her safety:
1. The occurrence of threatening gestures or other threatening conduct of the solicitor, including following the solicitee.
2. The proximity of the solicitor to the solicitee and the duration of the solicitation.
3. The making of physical contact with the solicitee.
E. “Intentionally block” means to walk, stand, sit, lie or place an object in such a manner as to block passage by another person or a vehicle or to require another person or driver of a vehicle to take evasive action to avoid physical contact. (Ord. 1243 § 1 (part), 1993)
9.06.020 Prohibition of aggressive soliciting.
It shall be unlawful for any person on the streets, sidewalks, or other places open to the public, whether publicly or privately owned, to intentionally coerce, threaten, hound, or intimidate another person for the purposes of soliciting alms. (Ord. 1243 § 1 (part), 1993)
9.06.025 Prohibition of solicitation from specified locations.
A. In order to promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic and to prevent the harassment and intimidation of citizens and visitors in the vicinity of cash dispensing institutions or facilities, and commercial and retail establishments, no person may solicit or beg for any moneys, goods or services, including offering any services in exchange for moneys, goods or services, while located:
1. Within twenty-five feet of any ATM or similar cash machine, bank, or savings and loan; or
2. Within six feet of the entrance to a commercial establishment or driveway thereto, or a driveway serving a shopping center; or
3. Within ten feet of any intersection of city streets, including intersections of city streets and state highways or state highway on- or off-ramps; or
4. On any median in any city street; or
5. On the roadway of any city street intended for the use of vehicular traffic, including approaching and/or attempting to interfere with the movement of any occupied vehicle while such vehicle is being operated on any city street.
B. This section shall not apply to a registered nonprofit organization conducting a fundraising activity within a commercial parking area with the permission of the owner, provided such activity does not interfere with the safe and orderly flow of traffic entering or exiting the parking area onto city streets and said organization has obtained all necessary permits. (Ord. 1491 § 1, 2006)
9.06.030 Demand for services.
This chapter is not intended to proscribe any demand for payment for services rendered or goods delivered. (Ord. 1243 § 1 (part), 1993)
9.06.040 Free speech.
This chapter is not intended to restrict the exercise of protected free speech. (Ord. 1243 § 1 (part), 1993)
9.06.060 Violation—Penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction and is subject to punishment as provided for in Chapter 1.12 of this code. (Ord. 1243 § 1 (part), 1993)
In this case we can see that this statute does not pass constitutional challenge obviously, however, that is not what we are concerned with, since the statute is not necessary in the first place due to law that already prohibits certain behavior. In reality, when I attempted to panhandle myself within the city, I was approached by law enforcement and was threatened with ticket, told there was no place within San Luis Obispo where panhandling was legal, as well the officer stated that it was illegal in fact to panhandle, therefore the statute is being used to guise aggressive law enforcement behavior and intimidate poor people from using a political message against the city officials.
The second law being utilized by law enforcement is anti-camping or vagrancy laws. This seems well and good on the surface. In reality it is a predatory tool with which to intimidate and harass, criminalize poverty and create criminal behavior for obvious reasons.
Example of current law in practice ( again we use a San Luis Obispo Ordinance ):
17.16.015 Recreational vehicle as dwelling unit.
No recreational vehicle, camper shell, automobile or similar device shall be used for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park, or campground, except as provided in Section 17.08.010(C)(4) et seq. (Ord. 1484 § 14, 2005: Ord. 1277 § 5, 1995)
Obviously we can see again with this statute that the law is written under the guise of equal protection but in reality only applies to a certain population within the city, the poor, as the properly housed do not need to sleep in their vehicles or illegally camp.
At this point I would like to ask a few basic questions of the courts. This is to show collusion of a very predatory nature. Question #1: What would happen to your child if they were “kept down” and forced into homelessness, or not even being stalked by predators, went homeless? Question #2: Would that your child were homeless and you were unable to help, or the child was unwilling to accept help, do you think these laws would help to protect your child, or do they in fact create a hostile environment ripe for the recruitment of terrorism, prostitution or criminal behavior in general? Question #3: Do you believe that the average adult could be forced into terrorism, prostitution or otherwise criminal behavior by a predator using these statutes to their advantage?
I ask the court of popular opinion not to overlook the very real dangers of the criminalization of poverty. Poverty is not behavior, it is a political abstract, one that can be used by politicians in a very real and aggressive manner to gain influence and constituency that favors predatory law enforcement. Please do not overlook the fact that law enforcement itself can be coercive, intimidating and harassing. The very laws being written within these states and cities that are supposedly meant to deal with behavioral problems create behavioral schematics that are in turn utilized throughout government to attract the negative aspects that we are attempting to eliminate, such as poverty, terrorism, crime, and prostitution. A fear based campaign process utilized by officials within law enforcement is predatory in nature, and follows suit to the campaign of political terrorism that we have seen since the “scared straight” program was initially founded.
( A link to “scared straight” and law enforcement within the prison system allowing sodomization of young males, that could have been easily prevented is obvious, especially when the officers were purposefully housing younger smaller males with larger predatory males within the prison system. This was done in obvious complicity to create fear in order to drive a political motivation. ) [ Above is to show predatory practice has been in practice for quite some time throughout law enforcement ]
Predatory buildup.
Here is some background source information which I hope will lead the court of popular opinion into the correct conclusion. Remember also that select individuals may have had prior motivation to writing some of the comments you may read from soources.
Sources and writings:
Below is just one example from source = http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-02-03/one-stop-homeless-center-planned-sr-207-site in the comments section:
not2extreme 02/04/12 - 07:44 am
They sure do!!
'Mary Lawrence, an advocate for the homeless, added, “These men and women have something to give back.”'
They sure do - tens of thoudands of dollars worth of stolen beer, uncounted man-hours from law enforcement, fire-rescue, and other government services that have no choice but to cater to these leeches and parasites. Buy them all a bus ticket out of here. It will be cheaper.
And here is the obvious result that you can find out about from source = http://www.thehomelessgirl.com/2012/03/06/sexual-exploitation-of-homeless-girls/ as well as there being an obvious cover up linked to the uncovering of this activity.
In this section I could go on and on with source material, however I merely wanted to bring attention to the common attitude that is displayed before the ordinances are put into place, and the obvious complicity throughout law enforcement in order to exploit the poor and homeless. I hope you haven't enjoyed this section as much as I haven't enjoyed writing it.
Long term effects.
There are many resultant effects of the criminalization of the poor. There are a few more prominent long terms effects however, and possibly the most pertinent is the continual degradation of the overall society. Many causes and factors are attributed to the degradation of a given societal population, criminalization of poverty though, it seems, is the foremost leading factor.
Criminalization in terms is a collective statement when it is not attached to restricted or prohibited behavior. Panhandling laws use these negative behaviors to guise stratagem in order to collectively punish the poor and create the fear of poverty, which in turn creates aggression. Collectivism as a conscious state is called communism and clearly almost all communist nations are exploitative in terms of the working class, even to the point of slavery. This can be seen throughout communist nations as they employ prostitution as a reward base for military and business ( state capitalists, not individual venture capitalists ) hierarchy. The prostitutes continually report that they are forced into the sex industry against their will within the communist system. It is important to note that communist nations do not allow illegal camping, as communism wishes to exploit individual labor without contract except to state, nor does communism allow panhandling as an expression of free political speech.
Unless these laws are eradicated we will continually become more of a communism than a democracy, and we can see with the fall of the Soviet Union of Russia ( U.S.S.R. ) that communism does not last once the population becomes aware of their enslavement. Political alliances within the United States with foreign nations that employ communism also become more of a threat as the outsourcing of data ( Experian recently outsourced credit data to India which has a communist party within it's governmental infrastructure, and we can clearly see the poverty in India and the exploitation of the working class work hand in hand. Imagine what the communist could do with our credit data! ) not just labor, becomes a more widely accepted business process allowed through political alliance under the guise of political alliance. Political alliance with a known communist entity in and of itself is cause for alarm, even if there is a seemingly anti-communist ruling party within the nation with which the alliance is formed. India has ties to communism in general throughout the known world, and the constant lack of political restraint in the forming of alliance with nations like India shows a more broad agenda than any American would think possible unless made aware.
Popular studies increasingly show the lack of constraint in defense contracting with communist entities as well. This could very well bleed back upon the overall law enforcement stratagem as most law enforcement officers are in fact ex military personnel. This in turn creates the need for the higher appellate courts to regroup and extend controls aimed at limiting not just military and political alliances but also law enforcement capabilities.
Poverty, ladies and gentlemen, is not a crime, and therefore is not punishable. Law enforcement stratagem though lacks this comprehension on state and local levels. It has become apparent throughout society as most already consider these laws predatory in nature.
We must as a whole society seek to alleviate the burdens of our fellow citizens through increased welfare monies and continual education as well as improving border security. If we don't act now against these heinous crimes against humanity, these obvious human rights violations, than we have become like the nations we have fought against and whom our forefathers died to defend us from. Eventually not only will our form of government collapse, we will also lose our ability to fight back, and that my fellow peoples of democracy is the fall of a nation.
Societal breakdown and eventual collapse.
Obviously there are many different reasons why a society or kingdom might bring upon themselves collapse, as well as the political indifference one might suspect precluded that collapse, however, with this study we can see through source material that in fact despite the politics of the age, that the most common factor is poverty. Poverty in and of itself is not problematic, if in fact the ruling class within the given society rules through satiation, for the facts are specific within the detail of analysis given without speculation. Power is responsibility, responsibility is power, the two are the same and not mutually exclusive of one another. Fallen societies as we can see, all seem to have forgotten this, as the ruling class becomes “aware” that they are in fact “elite” and cannot be challenged, not by inferior class nor by the rule of law itself. Poverty no longer is seen as something to be rid of through means of alleviation and education, but rather through eradication using systematic criminalization of said poverty. Collectivist law becomes more apparent during the final years of all fallen societies, though through obfuscation of policy due to appreciation for corruption, even the collegiate educated individuals become selectively blind.
Famous quote:
"Brainwashing is a system of befogging the brain so a person can be seduced into acceptance of what otherwise would be abhorrent to him. He loses touch with reality. Facts and fancy whirl round and change places.... However, in order to prevent people from recognizing the inherent evils in brainwashing, the Reds pretend that it is only another name for something already very familiar and of unquestioned respect, such as education or reform." Edward Hunter, Brainwashing (New York: Pyramid Books, 1956), pages 185-186)
Source material:
Deuteronomy 15
1 Samuel 8
1 Samuel 19
1st Kings 12
2 Chronicles 10
2nd Kings 23
Jeremiah 20
Psalm 109 (specifically Psalm 109:16)
Proverbs 31 ( Proverbs 31:9 - “Open your mouth, judge righteously, maintain the rights of the poor and needy.”)
http://www.discoveryeducation.com/teachers/free-lesson-plans/civilizations-fall-of-power.cfm
This is not a complete list by far and only meant to show how a popular democracy can fall victim to destruction from within the governmental infrastructure. Popular vote it seems does not protect us from this form of destruction as the popular vote may lead to the destruction through complicit organization. The constitution and the higher appellate courts do however have the power to stop what seems inevitable at this time.
Intellectuals throughout modern society are already coming to the same conclusion, that we have strayed into the path of other societies that have fallen. Given enough time, the disproportionate law and application thereof, will lead to even higher poverty rates, which in turn leads to higher levels of crime, cult prostitution such as XXX and pimping as well as many other forms of sexual exploitation, incarceration, drug usage and drug sales, murder, suicide, aggression and finally war. Though this is a long list of offenses, it is far from a complete list.
Conflicting accounts from politicians within our modern society have already driven the larger public opinion to the higher appellate courts in hopes of achieving what the politicians are unable to provide, freedom from oppression. It seems the very policies of modern politicians are in complete contrast to their own stated opinions as well. The popular media has also been ignoring, it seems, the reality of the everyday horror of living within modern societies. People are driven more and more into reclusive behaviors in order to avoid persecution from their own local law enforcement. N o one wants to be homeless, and if that isn't bad enough, to live in fear of losing your housing on a daily basis, the current systematic repression of rights has lead the local and state governments within the past twenty years to be able to criminalize the poor and even incarcerate them for merely being homeless or starving and begging for food. The fear based policies of local and state governments handed down from corrupt politicians creates a fear base throughout society and triggers the feeling of the need of rebellion. Take into account the disarmament of the working class and we can clearly see that without intervention from the higher appellate courts, a systematic decay is imminent. People will begin to rebel against the state governments and arm themselves with illegal weapons, much like we see in Mexico today, though mind you, the politicians are constantly working on newer strategy to cause the need for criminal activity, taking away weapons in order to prevent people from defending themselves, which inevitably leads to the downfall of a given society. In more general terms, most politicians are not fit to lead. Interestingly enough, it seems that the three most likely candidates to perpetuate their own failures as a means of revenue are the ones with the most power, politicians, law enforcement, and obviously biotechnology.
