Los Angeles
Police Department Goes Into Auto Sales Business
(By Ron Branson - J.A.I.L.
CIC)
I know this article may seem shocking to
many of you as you ask yourselves, "What is a police department doing in auto
sales?" That was exactly my question as I picked up the mail a couple days ago
on April 27, 2005.
It is typical in Los Angeles that
we receive numerous advertisement flyers in the mail from surrounding auto
dealerships seeking to sell their cars to the community and to improve
their business -- each dealer competing with other dealers. This is
natural and to be expected.
But on this date I also received a competing
flyer from the L.A.P.D. featuring full-color photographs, cars for
sale. This L.A.P.D. advertisement flyer says, "Cars, Trucks & SUV's
>From $500." Then the flyer features models available for sale of
Hondas, Chevys, Jeeps, Fords, Toyotas, Nissans and more. The
photographs display what appears to be new or next to new automobiles,
which includes a beautiful new red chromed-plated mag-wheeled pick-up
truck.
The first thing that struck me was, why is
the L.A.P.D. using public tax dollars to go into auto sales
business in competition with legitimate car sales businesses? I have
several automobile dealers immediately around me, to wit, Hondas, Fords,
Toyotas, etc., and if I do not have available what I want within walking
distance, all I have to do is go approximately four miles wherein is "Automobile
Row," which is lined on both sides of a major boulevard. Now enters the
market L.A.P.D. Auto Sales, advertising the sale of automobiles
through the mail.
Now here's the clincher of this ad, and that
is where they are getting their stock of cars for sale. Is it from the auto
manufacturers? No! It says, "Seized And Sold Locally." These are cars they have
taken from their owners and are now selling "From $500." Ah! --now I know
how it is that this L.A.P.D. Auto Dealership can offer such excellent
car deals, which incidentally cuts away from local merchants who
run legitimate car dealerships, and who buy their cars from
manufacturers. They get them free -- from you.
Here you have auto dealers advertising
their cars for $20,000 to $35,000, and then you see this L.A.P.D. flyer
featuring a photograph of a car just like it available from the L.A.P.D.
dealership for as little as $500.
I do not know about you, but if I owned
an auto dealership here, I would be screaming "Unfair competition." My
competition is in the automobile business using tax dollars,
and then they pay no taxes on their profits gained by their auto
sales business.
Lest any of you are saying, "But these are
automobiles that are gotten from mean and wicked people who deserve to lose
their automobiles," let me paint a little different picture for you. California,
along with many other states, have now required that all people behind the wheel
possess a Social Security Number. This new Social Security requirement has now
disenfranchised many thousands of good citizens who, for
conscience toward God, or reasons of
faith, or otherwise, do not have the required number to retain their
driver's licenses.
Supposedly, the whole idea of the driver's
licenses, as has been argued by the government, is to ascertain
whether one is competent to handle a motorized vehicle safely upon the
roads and highways of the state. But that reason has now changed. We have looked
into this change that is affecting thousands of people, and have found that
people having been safe drivers for the past fifty years, and who have
never once had a accident, are now no longer qualified to retain their
driver's licenses, and are being deprived of their driver's licenses.
And why are they no longer qualified to
drive? Is it becaust ehy are a risk? No! It is purely because of their
conscience toward God relating to the Social Security number, that is, they
do not believe in, or adhere to, what they believe is a godless number. These
people are all candidates for having their automobiles seized from them by
L.A.P.D.. and their car sold at the "L.A.P.D. Auto Dealership." In other words,
STOLEN.
When inquiry is made at the D.M.V. about
this "number" requirement, we have found divided opinions expressed. Even a
manager at the DMV agreed that it is A crazy POLICY that Social
Security is tied in with retaining one's driver's license. The manager,
agreeing with the pricipled common-sense argument, called Sacramento and
tried to talk sense with them on this, but was told, "The law is the law, and
the people have to obey the law."
The next stage, since the D.M.V. said
the law is the law, was to test whether one was obligated to disobey their
conscience toward God in order to obey the law. This was an artfully
designed test question on how far they demanded "obedience,"
and if that "obedience" had to defy the God of Nature spoken of in our
Declaration of Independence, if necesary. The DMV's official answer to that
question was, "You must obey the law," which is to say, "Yes, one is
obligated to disobey their conscience toward the God of Nature in order to obey
the law."
While this is the DMV's official
religious mantra, they refuse to address the "God of Nature"
equation. Obviously then, these victims of this DMV mantra,
which are many, have unjustly been deprived of their driver's licenses for
consciences sake, and are now made the target for replenishing the needed
automobile resources for the L.A.P.D. Auto Dealership.
Now some of you may be asking, "What has
this got to do with J.A.I.L. or an arbitrary judiciary?" Plenty.
This policy, practice and custom of "relieving" people of their automobiles
to sell them on the open market could not in the least stand up against even a
simple constitutional test. For instance, the victim's automobile is
instantly hauled off, immediately depriving the owner of his property without
due process of law -- a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. Further, there
is no presumption of innocence at all, but rather one of guilt. No one has
heard or decided anything.
Further, taking the government's
acclaimed argument that "driving is a privilege," even the courts used to
say, "A privilege, once granted, cannot be deprived without due process of
law," meaning that one cannot be deprived of their driving "privilege" without
some sort of hearing process. But the judges have changed that, and now all
these people are being deprived of their driver's license without being afforded
a hearing process whatsoever. As a result, they are now being deprived not only
of a hearing process, but also their automobile.
Please, please, I ask our readers not
to write us with a myriad of court cases on "privilege v.
rights" arguments on driving. I am aware of such prior cases
as Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579 "The right of
the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a
city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 221 "The use of
the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere
privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived," and Schactman vs. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe
its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as
a natural right," and Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116,
125 "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment,
" or the well-known case of Miranda vs.
Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 "Where rights secured by the Constitution
are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them."
I have no doubt that once J.A.I.L. is passed and
becomes operational, these issues will surely be tested on constitutional
grounds in the courts and before the Special Grand Juries on the question of
willful violations of the law and the Constitution.
For the instant moment real people are
being made real victims of having their
vehicles/properties seized and sold without due process of law
whatsoever, and the judges are not buying their own prior decided
cases that one may not be a deprived of property without due process of
law. We are not talking theory here, folks, but reality and actual
practice, the law, and case decisions notwithstanding. Forget about your
arguments, "They can't do that!" I am saying the courts are doing
that.
This is why we need J.A.I.L., and until that time, the
people shall continually screaming to us about the effects of tyranny
inflicted upon them by the judges who hold nothing but contempt for the
Constitution they have sworn to uphold.