Does Chattanooga need a private commission to review abuses by state actors within the county and bring indictments via the grand jury?

This commission would be able to bring indictments when an arrest without probable cause is understood to be effectively a state kidnapping that district attorney Neal Pinkston plans to ignore. When any citizen’s rights can be shown to have been violated by action outside of authority, the commission would invite an open hearing that would be published on YouTube and in other media, with grievances lodged with the head of the grand jury.

The existence of such a commission would be to make state actors careful about how they wield their authority, their statutes and their pistols against members of the public.
Today I interview David Myrland of Seattle, a prolific legal researcher and analyst who helps people in trouble. He has done research on U.S. and state tax law and regulation of travel. He is the author of a 2016 book, No Confidence; Civil Liberty Vs. Homeland Security. His website is wevgov.com.

Mr. Myrland has extraordinary insights into the commercial claims by the state against travel. He has pointed the way to further research, particularly the originating statutes of the Tennessee commercial driver’s license act in Title 55 of the Tennessee code.

He suggests that the early language and the early definitions of the state’s seizure of this property right would be very relevant in a defense of using the public road without a driver license, insurance, or state registration of a car or truck.

Many immigrants in the Chattanooga area drive without licenses, though many people comply to bring their vehicles in the commercial jurisdiction of an executive administrative agency, the department of safety and homeland security, a Nashville organization. Some even can afford insurance and show proof of it.

The right of travel, a significant property right, should be freely exercise not just by immigrants, but by all people in Tennessee. Commercial infractions are heavily imposed upon the poor and upon blacks. Mr. Mryland has been helpful in his discussions about how this drudgery is done and earlier interviews have helped crystallize my thinking on this point of liberty, and overlook liberty, no doubt.

Here is his proposal for a commission to review abuse by the state, some of which are extraordinary, such as that against Chattanooga resident Hanson Melvin by officer David Campbell, who recently was fired for violation of department rules. Mr. Campbell arguably committed felony and misdemeanor perjury in his kidnapping of Mr. Hanson, but district attorney Pinkston refuses to indict. — DJT

By David Myrland

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”

See Supreme Court decisions United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 239-240 (1974).

HOWEVER: On August 31, 2010, Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk shot John T. Williams to death in broad daylight, in downtown Seattle, WA, and was permitted to simply quit the police force and move away.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/02/21/shooting-death-john-t-williams-18538

In 2005 WA State Trooper, Michael Idland, was permitted to plead guilty to misdemeanor counts despite having sexually assaulted at least nine women in fake DUI traffic stops and subsequent arrests, thus avoiding the requirement that he register in the future as a sex offender. He received administrative pay during his 16 months in jail pending trial.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Trooper-free-in-misconduct-plea-deal-1184046.php

These are just two examples, in just one American city (Seattle, WA), that prove the criminal justice system to be wholly inept, and indifferent, when it comes to serving justice in the instances of crimes committed by public servants. Far too numerous to count or review, these instances and this systemic inadequacy are utterly unacceptable, and they serve to prove that community action is required to reacquire and preserve a civil society for America’s children, its women, and the family.

Democratic controls of state actors

CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMISSION — We the People have to address this problem on our own because our servants have failed us. When a group of competent individuals can confirm that a crime has, in fact, been committed by a public servant, without the participation of or interference from, prosecutorial authorities, political pressure can then be asserted to diminish or vanquish altogether the official right of the perpetrator to approach any individual in the future about any matter related to their office.

“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” — See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 471-485 (1928).

OBJECTIVE — Members of the commission or panel will be studious and versed in weighing evidence and testimony against the language of criminal statutes to accurately determine which crimes, if any, have indeed been committed against the individual who approaches the panel for a determination. If successfully proven, a statement affirming the accusations will issue, and the accuser will then be armed with the public’s view of the conduct, in writing, and could then approach the media and, more importantly, the superiors of the accused, with reasonable proof that public service on the part of the accused should be terminated.

Own YouTube channel

A PUBLIC RECORD — The cases heard by the commission will be formally presented and argued at hearings, video recorded, and placed on the commission’s YouTube channel, and the documents relating to the case will be posted in an orderly fashion on the commission’s web site. Documents will include proof of service showing that the accused was given a chance to appear and defend, and that radio, t.v., and news outlets have been apprised of the commission’s findings and the places where more information is available.

GETTING THE WORD OUT — From individual instances of abuse to systemic fraud and extortion, the occasions when justice is truly served are virtually nonexistent. The public has to know of the commission’s existence and goals, and it must be within the reach of victims of government abuses. Social networking, online and otherwise, must be a part of the commission’s activities in the first months of its existence. The education and experience behind this effort are substantial and will prove in stark detail many ways the law is subverted on literally a daily basis, and in every state, county, and city.

“. . . Nevertheless, merely disagreeing with the law does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law because all persons have a duty to obey the law whether or not they agree with it. . . .” — See Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 9.42.

“On its face, this is an attractive argument. Petitioner urges that, in view of the severity of the result flowing from a denial of suspension of deportation, we should interpret the statute by resolving all doubts in the applicant’s favor. Cf. United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187-188. But we must adopt the plain meaning of a statute, however severe the consequences. Cf.Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 528.” — See Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345, 357 (1956).

THE LAW IS PERFECT — With only statute as the tool of choice, standard operating procedures of municipal, state, and federal agencies and courts will be exposed as mere racketeering schemes, or worse, in relation to income taxation, motor vehicle code enforcement, and other daily intrusions that have become all too familiar and menacing. This effort is a step boldly taken into the personal space of the individual who would have everyone believe that honest Americans have no remedy. Don’t tread on me.