 |
 |
R. A. Pie-Hole the Problem?
Once
again, national attention is being drawn to
unconstitutional law enforcement practices in Arizona. As usual, Maricopa
County Sheriff R. A. Pie-Hole is the center of that attention. Pie-Hole
himself, however, is not the problem; virtually every law enforcement agency,
and officer, in the entire State of Arizona is operating outside the official
scope of their authority. This is nothing new; the tradition of Arizona
employing bullies with badges to uphold the law by breaking it dates back at least to
Wyatt Earp.
In 1966, the Supreme Court of the
United States handed down a landmark decision when they ruled against the State
of Arizona in Miranda. That case concerned Arizona law enforcement officers searching
without a warrant and questioning a person without having informed that person
of their right against self-incrimination. More than forty years later, it
remains standard operating procedure for law enforcement officers in the State
of Arizona to conduct warrantless searches and question individuals without
advising those individuals that they have the right against self-incrimination.
Moreover, the standard “plea agreement”
used in Arizona courts was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States
to have been “unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous” in 1995; the High Court
ordered the State to amend the plea agreement accordingly. Nonetheless, the
plea agreement Arizona uses today remains the same as it was before the ruling.
In case after case, officers of the State
of Arizona have ignored federal law and behaved as though State law pre-empts
and supercedes the Supreme Law of the Land, but guess what? It doesn’t!
R. A. Pie-Hole isn’t the problem, he’s
merely symptomatic of the systemic corruption that permeates each and every law
enforcement agency in the entire State of Arizona.
Virtually all of the sworn officers of the
State of Arizona are not only criminals, but traitors to the United States of
America, and here’s why:
The Constitution for the United States of
America clearly states the source of sovereignty in our nation with the first
words of the Preamble: "We, the People of the United States..."
As the Constitution begins with the
declaration of sovereignty, the body closes (immediately prior to the clause calling
for ratification) in Article VI with the words: "all executive and
judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States."
The first ten Amendments to the
Constitution recognize, guarantee and protect our rights and sovereign status.
Failure by any sworn public servant to uphold the letter of the entire
Constitution is prima facie evidence of violation of oath of office, cause for
criminal and civil actions, and grounds for immediate removal from office.
Furthermore, Arizona’s bullies with badges
have no immunity from civil actions when they step beyond their authority to
throw their weight around. This doesn’t only apply to cops, but to judges who
abuse judicial discretion by either exercising authority beyond that lawfully
granted to them, or by failing to fulfill obligations such as vacating prior
orders of other judges whom have done so. It also applies to politicians.
In 1995, Janet Napalitano was named as a
defendant in a (Section 14141) sexual assault case brought by the U. S.
Department of Justice against prison guards at the women’s facility in
Florence. The State appealed the case all the way to the (U.S.) Supreme Court,
where it was determined that the governor’s responsibilities under the State
Constitution made her just as guilty of the crime as the guards who had been
standing around masturbating while watching the female inmates shower. Has Gov.
Janet ever registered as a sex offender? Her failure to do so is, in itself, a
federal offense.
The U.S. Supreme
Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, stated that "when a state officer acts under
a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, [s]he
"comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and
is in that case stripped of his[/her] official or representative character and
is subjected in his[/her] person to the
consequences of his[/her] individual
conduct. The State has no power to impart to him[/her] any immunity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United States."
As national
elections loom on the political horizon with a senior senator from Arizona
poised to vie for tenure as the penultimate public servant, it’s important to
remember that John McCain, just like every other official in Arizona, is every bit as much a traitor to the Constitution as
R.A. Pie-Hole.
|
|