Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court ruled that any law that violates the Constitution is automatically void.

From: V.K.Durham@comcast.net
To: V.K.Durham@comcast.net
Sent: 3/29/2013 7:11:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court ruled that any law that violates the Constitution is automatically void.

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=272883

We live under a government that passes unconstitutional laws, then drags its feet when hauled before the Supreme Court to test that law's Constitutionality. But under Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court ruled that any law that violates the Constitution is automatically void. And under John Bad Elk vs United States, any citizen has a right to resist with lethal force any violation of their civil rights by the application of unconstitutional laws.

Joe Biden's claim to a government right to determine what guns We The People may be allowed to own violates both the Second and Tenth Amendments, and under Marbury v. Madison, any laws passed to limit our Second Amendment rights are automatically null and void.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

At the last term, on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case requiring the Secretary of State to show cause why a mandamus [p154] should not issue directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.

No cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus. The peculiar delicacy of this case, the novelty of some of its circumstances, and the real difficulty attending the points which occur in it require a complete exposition of the principles on which the opinion to be given by the Court is founded.

These principles have been, on the side of the applicant, very ably argued at the bar. In rendering the opinion of the Court, there will be some departure in form, though not in substance, from the points stated in that argument.

In the order in which the Court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided.

1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

The first object of inquiry is:

1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

His right originates in an act of Congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the District of Columbia.

After dividing the district into two counties, the eleventh section of this law enacts,

that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the President of the United States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years. [p155]

It appears from the affidavits that, in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace for the County of Washington was signed by John Adams, then President of the United States, after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it, but the commission has never reached the person for whom it was made out.

In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to inquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has been appointed, the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed, became his property.

The second section of the second article of the Constitution declares, "The President shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for."

The third section declares, that "He shall commission all the officers of the United States."

An act of Congress directs the Secretary of State to keep the seal of the United States, to make out and record, and affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States to be appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, or by the President alone; provided that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission before the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States.

These are the clauses of the Constitution and laws of the United States which affect this part of the case. They seem to contemplate three distinct operations:

1. The nomination. This is the sole act of the President, and is completely voluntary.

2. The appointment. This is also the act of the President, and is also a voluntary act, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. [p156]

3. The commission. To grant a commission to a person appointed might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the Constitution. "He shall," says that instrument, "commission all the officers of the United States."

The acts of appointing to office and commissioning the person appointed can scarcely be considered as one and the same, since the power to perform them is given in two separate and distinct sections of the Constitution. The distinction between the appointment and the commission will be rendered more apparent by adverting to that provision in the second section of the second article of the Constitution which authorises Congress to vest by law the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the heads of departments; thus contemplating cases where the law may direct the President to commission an officer appointed by the Courts, or by the heads of departments. In such a case, to issue a commission would be apparently a duty distinct from the appointment, the performance of which perhaps could not legally be refused.

Although that clause of the Constitution which requires the President to commission all the officers of the United States may never have been applied to officers appointed otherwise than by himself, yet it would be difficult to deny the legislative power to apply it to such cases. Of consequence, the constitutional distinction between the appointment to an office and the commission of an officer who has been appointed remains the same, as if in practice the President had commissioned officers appointed by an authority other than his own.

It follows, too, from the existence of this distinction that, if an appointment was to be evidenced by any public act other than the commission, the performance of such public act would create the officer, and if he was not removable at the will of the President, would either give him a right to his commission or enable him to perform the duties without it.

These observations are premised solely for the purpose of rendering more intelligible those which apply more directly to the particular case under consideration. [p157]

This is an appointment made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is evidenced by no act but the commission itself. In such a case, therefore, the commission and the appointment seem inseparable, it being almost impossible to show an appointment otherwise, than by proving the existence of a commission; still, the commission is not necessarily the appointment; though conclusive evidence of it.

But at what stage does it amount to this conclusive evidence?

The answer to this question seems an obvious one. The appointment, being the sole act of the President, must be completely evidenced, when it is shown that he has done everything to be performed by him.

Should the commission, instead of being evidence of an appointment, even be considered as constituting the appointment itself, still it would be made when the last act to be done by the President was performed, or, at furthest, when the commission was complete.

The last act to be done by the President is the signature of the commission. He has then acted on the advice and consent of the Senate to his own nomination. The time for deliberation has then passed. He has decided. His judgment, on the advice and consent of the Senate concurring with his nomination, has been made, and the officer is appointed. This appointment is evidenced by an open, unequivocal act, and, being the last act required from the person making it, necessaont-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission, and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument which is complete. It attests, by an act supposed to be of public notoriety, the verity of the e point of time must be taken when the power of the Executive over an officer, not removable at his will, must cease. That point of time must be when the constitutional power of appointment has been exercised. And this power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. This last act is the signature of the commission. This idea seems to have prevailed with the Legislature when the act passed, converting the Department [p158] of Foreign Affairs into the Department of State. By that act, it is enacted that the Secretary of State shall keep the seal of the United States, and shall make out and record, and shall affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States, to be appointed by the President: . . . provided that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission before the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States, nor to any other instrument or act without the special warrant of the President therefor.

The signature is a warrant for affixing the great seal to the commission, and the great seal is only to be affixed to an instrument which is complete. It attests, by an act supposed to be of public notoriety, the verity of the Presidential signature.

It is never to be affixed till the commission is signed, because the signature, which gives force and effect to the commission, is conclusive evidence that the appointment is made.

The commission being signed, the subsequent duty of the Secretary of State is prescribed by law, and not to be guided by the will of the President. He is to affix the seal of the United States to the commission, and is to record it.

This is not a proceeding which may be varied, if the judgment of the Executive shall suggest one more eligible, but is a precise course accurately marked out by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to conform to the law, and in this, he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the President. It is a ministerial act, which the law enjoins on a particular officer, for a particular purpose.

If it should be supposed that the solemnity of affixing the seal is necessary, not only to the validity of the commission, but even to the completion of an appointment, still, when the seal is affixed, the appointment is made, and [p159]="MsoNormal"> This idea is founded on the supposition that the commission is not merely evidence of an appointment, but is itself the actual appointment -- a supposition by no means unquestionable. But, for the purpose of examining this objection fairly, let it be conceded that the principle claimed for its support is established.

The appointment being, under the Constitution, to be made by the President personally, the delivery of the deed of appointment, if necessary to its completion, must be made by the President, also. It is not necessary that the livery should be made personally to the grantee of the office; it never is so made. The law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the Secretaryears possible to give them, they do not shake the opinion which has been formed.

In considering this question, it has been conjectured that the commission may have been assimilated to a deed to the validity of which delivery is essential.

This idea is founded on the supposition that the commission is not merely evidence of an appointment, but is itself the actual appointment -- a supposition by no means unquestionable. But, for the purpose of examining this objection fairly, let it be conceded that the principle claimed for its support is established.

The appointment being, under the Constitution, to be made by the President personally, the delivery of the deed of appointment, if necessary to its completion, must be made by the President, also. It is not necessary that the livery should be made personally to the grantee of the office; it never is so made. The law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the Secretary of State, since it directs the secretary to affix the seal to the commission after it shall have been signed by the President. If then the act of livery be necessary to give validity to the commission, it has been delivered when executed and given to the Secretary for the purpose of being sealed, recorded, and transmitted to the party.

But in all cases of letters patent, certain solemnities are required by law, which solemnities are the evidences [p160] of the validity of the instrument. A formal delivery to the person is not among them. In cases of commissions, the sign manual of the President and the seal of the United States are those solemnities. This objection, therefore, does not touch the case.

It has also occurred as possible, and barely possible, that the transmission of the commission and the acceptance thereof, might be deemed necessary to complete the right of the plaintiff.

The transmission of the commission is a practice directed by convenience, but not by law. It cannot therefore be necessary to constitute the appointment, which must precede it and which is the mere act of the President. If the Executive required that every person appointed to an office should himself take means to procure his commission, the appointment would not be the less valid on that account. The appointment is the sole act of the President; the transmission of the commission is the sole act of the officer to whom that duty is assigned, and may be accelerated or retarded by circumstances which can have no influence on the appointment. A commission is transmitted to a person already appointed, not to a person to be appointed or not, as the letter enclosing the commission should happen to get into the post office and reach him in safety, or to miscarry.

It may have some tendency to elucidate this point to inquire whether the possession of the original commission be indispensably necessary to authorize a person appointed to any office to perform the duties of that office. If it was necessary, then a loss of the commission would lose the office. Not only negligence, but accident or fraud, fire or theft might deprive an individual of his office. In such a case, I presume it could not be doubted but that, a copy from the record of the Office of the Secretary of State would be, to every intent and purpose, equal to the original. The act of Congress has expressly made it so. To give that copy validity, it would not be necessary to prove that the original had been transmitted and afterwards, lost. The copy would be complete evidence that the original had existed, and that the appointment had been made, but not that the original had been transmitted. If, indeed, it should appear that [p161] the original had been mislaid in the Office of State, that circumstance would not affect the operation of the copy. When all the requisites have been performed, which authorize a recording officer to record any instrument whatever, and the order for that purpose has been given, the instrument is in law considered as recorded, although the manual labour of inserting it in a book kept for that purpose, may not have been performed.
In the case of commissions, the law orders the Secretary of State to record them. When, therefore, they are signed and sealed, the order for their being recorded is given, and, whether inserted in the book or not, they are in law recorded.
A copy of this record is declared equal to the original, and the fees to be paid by a person requiring a copy are ascertained by law. Can a keeper of a public record erase therefrom, a commission which has been recorded? Or can he refuse a copy thereof, to a person demanding it on the terms prescribed by law?
Such a copy would, equally with the original, authorize the justice of peace to proceed in the performance of his duty, because it would, equally with the original, attest his appointment.
If the transmission of a commission be not considered as necessary to give validity to an appointment, still less is its acceptance. The appointment is the sole act of the President; the acceptance is the sole act of the officer, and is, in plain common sense, posterior to the appointment. As he may resign, so may he refuse to accept; but neither the one, nor the other, is capable of rendering the appointment a nonentity.
That this is the understanding of the government is apparent from the whole tenor of its conduct.
A commission bears date, and the salary of the officer commences from his appointment, not from the transmission or acceptance of his commission. When a person appointed to any office refuses to accept that office, the successor is nominated in the place of the person who [p162] has declined to accept, and not in the place of the person who had been previously in office and had created the original vacancy.
It is, therefore, decidedly the opinion of the Court that, when a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made, and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State.
Where an officer is removable at the will of the Executive, the circumstance which completes his appointment is of no concern, because the act is at any time revocable, and the commission may be arrested, if still in the office. But when the officer is not removable at the will of the Executive, the appointment is not revocable, and cannot be annulled. It has conferred legal rights which cannot be resumed.
The discretion of the Executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is terminated in all cases, where by law the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the absolute, unconditional power of accepting, or rejecting, it.
Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State, was appointed, and as the law creating the office gave the officer a right to hold [it] for five years, independent of the Executive, the appointment was not revocable, but vested in the officer legal rights which are protected by the laws of his country.
To withhold the commission, therefore, is an act deemed, by the Court, not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.
This brings us to the second inquiry, which is:
2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? [p163]
The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
"In all other cases", he says, "it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy, by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded."
more: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html

Infanticide: Planned "Parenthood" Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion (Video)

Infanticide: Planned "Parenthood" Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion (Video)

Posted By: MrFusion [Send E-Mail]
Date: Saturday, 30-Mar-2013 02:01:47

Our Dear Leader's notoriously murky stance on this issue appears to be encouraging those who are less ambiguous in their moral bankruptcy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion By JOHN MCCORMACK | Mar 29, 2013 Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion. Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor. "So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow. ~~~~~ MORE AT: ~~~~~ http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=272923

Now It Is Total Bank Fraud

Tom Heneghan explosive intelligence briefings ALL patriot Americans MUST know, with sources inside American/European intelligence agencies and INTERPOL, reporting what is really going on behind the scenes of the corporate-controlled, fascist, extortion-friendly propaganda U.S. media's massive deceptions
Friday March 29, 2013
Now It Is Total Bank Fraud

by Tom Heneghan
International Intelligence Expert

UNITED States of America - It can now be reported that Dutch bank ABN Amro, the Nazi German Deutsche Bank and the bank-controlled discount brokerage whorehouse AmeriTrade have not been executing orders for their customers who have been buying long positions and call options in gold and silver but instead collecting the premium and then putting out falsified electronic statements that the customers' own the positions when they do not!

This is the PFG fiasco all over again only on a much larger scale.

These gangster banks, with their computer geek enablers, use the premium collected from their customers to then write naked short positions in the gold and silver futures, as well as the Japanese yen currency, with the direct assistance of the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve and the Central Bank of Japan.

left image JUSTIN LANE (EPA)

The underwriter for this fraud aka the casino pimps of last resort are JPMorgan Chase and Union Bank of Switzerland.

P.S. This new grandiose PFG-style ponzi scheme has now generated $9.9 TRILLION in illegal cross-collateralized derivatives that threaten to implode the world economy at any moment.

Madoff and Bernanke

Question: Is there any difference between Bernard Madoff and Federal Reserve Chairman and crooked bank stooge, Ben Shalom Bernanke?

Answer: There is none!

Neither fraudster ever took a course in accounting.

P.P.S. As the April 1st deadline nears for the final implementation of the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocols, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the new Chinese government officials have told U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to sign off on the transfer of funds now or there will be hell to pay!

P.P.P.S. Hell to pay may have already happened.

In closing, at this hour, the New York COMEX exchange does not have the physical silver or gold to make delivery on specified future contracts.

Stay tuned for our next intelligence briefing in which we will explain how world financial markets are manipulated with the use of cell phone and voice inflection.

Related:

Another Gold Shortage? Dutch ABN To Halt Physical Gold Delivery
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-24/another-gold-shortage-abn-halt-physical-gold-delivery

Welcome to Sulphur Springs, Where the Police Chief is a Murderer

Like many third-world countries, Arkansas is a beautiful place inhabited by lovely people who are burdened with an extravagantly corrupt ruling class. This helps explain, but by no means does it justify, the fact that the minuscule town of Sulphur Springs, Arkansas now has a convicted killer as its police chief.

by William N. Grigg
Pro Libertate
March 30, 2013
In January 2010, Coleman Brackney, at the time an officer in the department that menaces nearby Bella Vista, murdered a man named James Ahern following a high-speed chase. After trapping Ahern’s vehicle and then pounding on his window, Brackney shot him six times – the last time in the back. Brackney claimed that Ahern – who had a record of trivial and petty offenses, including the non-crime of “resisting arrest” – attempted to run him over after the chase had ended. This was a lie, of course: The dashcam video documented that Brackney was never in danger. 
By any honest definition, this was an act of murder. Yet Brackney was prosecuted for “negligent homicide” – a charge that assumes that the officer, who shot Ahern six times at point-blank range, including once in the back, did not intend to kill the victim. He was sentenced to a single month in the Benton County Jail and fined $1,000. The families of the victim were given a $20,000 settlement by the county. 
After Brackney was released, his criminal record was expunged. Last April, the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement – a regulatory body that enforces less rigorous professional standards than whatever body sanctions professional wrestling referees – reinstated Brackney’s “peace officer” certification.  All that he needed now was a job opening – and one was soon created in Sulphur Springs.
Between late 2010 and March 25 of this year, residents of Sulphur Springs had known the singular blessing of living in a community devoid of police. It is an abuse of language to refer to Sulphur Springs as a “town”; as of the last census, its population was about 500 people, and it had no measurable crime rate. There hasn’t been a murder in Sulphur Springs in recent memory. By hiring a murderer as police chief, the people who presume to rule that tiny village managed to handle both the supply and demand side of law enforcement, as it were.
“I told the guys the day I left I would be back,” gloated Brackney in a local TV news interview, displaying the gift for self-preoccupation that typifies his caste. “You put the uniform back on and you look at yourself in the mirror, and you think, `I’m back.’” Of course, the same cannot be said of Brackney’s victim, for whom the newly enthroned police chief apparently cannot spare a thought.
Indeed, Brackney displays a sociopath’s inability to recognize that he did anything wrong by murdering a man and then perjuring himself in an attempt to conceal the crime.
Like every other police officer who has committed criminal violence against a member of the public, Brackney takes refuge in the casual elitism that is commonplace among those in his profession: “Until you have actually rode [sic] with a police officer or have a family member or a friend that [sic] is a police officer, you don’t really know what that job entails.” 
In other words: Until you have been licensed to perform acts of criminal aggression or unless you have a relative thus invested, you have no moral standing to criticize those who use that spurious sanction to commit criminal homicide.
To paraphrase Albert Nock’s deathless insight, government police forces don’t exist to eliminate crime, but rather to enforce a government monopoly on crime. Coleman Brackney embodies that principle with uncanny fidelity. This is to be expected of Arkansas, where there quite literally are no standards governing the qualifications and performance of police officers.
Practically any hominid who can drive a car, pull a trigger, and emit sounds that vaguely resemble the English language can be stuffed into a government-issued costume and exercise “authority” on behalf of the State of Arkansas.
Consider this: In order to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist in the State of Arkansas, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. After logging 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor. The same state government that exercises such rigorous oversight of people who cut hair or paint nails in the private sector, it imposes no training or licensing standards on police officers. Practically anybody who asks for a job as a police officer in Arkansas can get a stinkin’ badge; it’s the qualifications that are unnecessary. “The second night I ever put on a badge and gun I was riding in my own car,” recalled Crittenden County Chief Deputy Tommy Martin. At the time, Martin was 21 years old and hadn’t spent so much as a minute inside a police academy classroom. “According to Arkansas state law, officers do not have to be certified for up to a year after they’re hired,” reported the Memphis Fox News affiliate in February 2010 – just a few weeks after Officer Brackney murdered James Ahern. “The Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training says they can get an 8 month extension on top of that. So for almost 2 years, an officer can patrol the streets, by his or herself, and enforce the law without having any kind of training.” And, as we learned last April, that same Commission is eager to reinstate the certification of police officers who have served time behind bars for acts of criminal homicide.
Arkansas is riddled with tiny towns afflicted with police who are not merely corrupt, but demented. 
In late 2009, Police Chief Greg Martin of Turrell, Arkansas (population roughly 900 people) was charged with aggravated assault after he broke into the home of City Council member Floyd Holmes and threatened the Councilman and his wife with a gun.
A similar confrontation a few months earlier in nearby Jericho actually resulted in an attempted homicide. 
Until about 1990, the flyspeck town of Jericho (population circa 200 people) was blessedly devoid of police. This changed when the town received a grant to create its own police force – and the community has been suffering ever since.
Over the past two decades, Jericho acquired a richly deserved reputation as one of the most notorious speed traps in the South. But its police department doesn’t just prey on unsuspecting visitors with out-of-state license plates: Persistent harassment by the police and a rising tide of official corruption drove many locals to leave the town.
A few years ago, Fire Chief Don Payne challenged a dubious speeding ticket in court. Later that day, he was hit with a second spurious citation as a transparent act of retaliation for challenging the first one. When he protested the second citation, Payne was mobbed in court by seven officers and then shot. This atrocity did have one salutary result: The police department was temporarily disbanded, and all outstanding citations were dismissed, while investigators tried to determine what had happened to the funds that had been mulcted from speed trap victims.
 
The town of Paragould has a population of 25,000, which makes it a major metropolis by Arkansas standards. This might explain the grandiose ambitions of Todd Stovall, the J.W. Pepper-grade living caricature who presides over the town’s police department. 
Last January, Stovall, who appears to be building his own little private army, announced that he would be deploying SWAT operators armed with AR-15s to harass people on the streets. 
“The fear is what’s given us the reason to do this,” insisted Stovall as he announced that the city would be placed under martial law for the supposed purpose of deterring crime. “Once I have stats and people are saying they’re scared, we can do this. It allows us to do what we’re fixing to do.”
There is no evidence that people in Paragould are in fear of anyone other than the bullet-headed dimwit who heads their police force, and the costumed adolescents under his command. The “stats” referred to by Stovall certainly don’t justify the perception that the town is under siege. While Paragould historically has a high burglary rate, its violent crime rate is substantially below the national average: In 2010, the last year for which stats are available, there wasn’t a single murder in the town. 
Despite these facts, Stovall insists that a “crisis” exists that justifies the suspension of constitutional rules and the imposition of a city-wide curfew.
“I’ve got statistical reasons that say I’ve got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you’re doing out,” grunted Stovall at a town meeting at the West View Baptist Church. He admits that he didn’t consult an attorney before reaching that conclusion, and that “I don’t even know that there’s ever been a difference” between what he’s proposing and undisguised martial law. To those who might complain about being harassed by Stovall’s minions, the chief offers an unqualified promise: “If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, check for your ID….We have a zero-tolerance. We are prepared to throw your hind-end in jail, OK? We are not going to take a lot of flack.” 
“We’re going to do it to everybody,” Stovall explained, anticipating objections. “Criminals don’t like being talked to.”
The same is true of citizens, of course. But like most members of his paramilitary tribe, Stovall divides the world between the Mundane population — which is to be intimidated into submission – and enlightened agents of State “authority” such as himself and the murderer who is the newly appointed police chief of Sulphur Springs.
http://intellihub.com/2013/03/30/welcome-to-sulphur-springs-where-the-police-chief-is-a-murderer/

Scalar Energy Created the Image Found on the Shroud of Turin

Scalar Energy Created the Image Found on the Shroud of Turin

Posted By: patwin [Send E-Mail]
Date: Saturday, 30-Mar-2013 07:09:13

by Tom Paladino The Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth that covered the body of Jesus Christ, the Savior, after His Crucifixion and Death. The Shroud of Turin measures 14.3 x 3.7 ft. and reveals the double image (front and back) of the scourged and crucified Body of Jesus Christ. The image on the Shroud of Turin is so distinct that even the Blood and Water stains from the Body of Christ appear on the burial cloth. The Shroud provides a perfect record of Christ's suffering and death that He endured in order to save mankind from sin. The Face of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin After Christ had died upon the Cross, His Body was prepared for burial as a new winding sheet was used to cover the Body of Christ in the tomb. It was this winding sheet that received the Image of Christ when the Resurrection took place three days later on Easter Sunday. At the precise moment of the Resurrection, an effulgence of scalar energy emanated from the Body of Christ and left an Image of His body on the burial shroud. The Full Length Shroud of Turin Scalar energy is exclusively responsible for the image of Jesus Christ imparted upon the Shroud of Turin. Scalar energy is an informational energy that is capable of forming an image, assembling a molecule or creating the structure of a galaxy. Scalar energy is a subtle form of light that provides the instructions as to how physical matter is assembled and maintained. When the image of the Shroud of Turin is photographed, the image itself gives the appearance of being a negative. The scalar energy information imparted on the Shroud by the effulgence of light, left the image of Christ as a photographic negative. The Shroud is in some sense a scalar energy negative. Continue reading here Scalar Energy Created the Image Found on the Shroud of Turin if you resonate with this information . . . http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=272934