In law there is the concept of adverse possession, ...

1 view
Skip to first unread message

sma...@comcast.net

unread,
Nov 7, 2013, 8:14:43 PM11/7/13
to shadowgovernment, Condoner, Colluders, ForeignRealEstate, PsyWar, EnemyBase




In law there is the concept of adverse possession, popularly known as
"squatters' rights." A non-owner who succeeds in occupying a piece of
property or some one else's right for a certain time without being evicted
enjoys the ownership title conveyed to him. The reasoning is that by not
defending his rights, the owner showed his disinterest and in effect gave
his rights away.

Americans have not defended their rights conveyed by the US Constitution for
the duration of the terms of three presidents. The Clinton regime was not
held accountable for its illegal attack on Serbia. The Bush regime was not
held accountable for its illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The
Obama regime was not held accountable for its renewed attack on Afghanistan
and its illegal attacks on Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen, and by its proxies on
Syria.

We also have other strictly illegal and unconstitutional acts of government
for which the government has not been held accountable. The Bush regimes'
acts of torture, indefinite detention, and warrantless spying, and the Obama
regime's acts of indefinite detention, warrantless spying, and murder of US
citizens without due process. As the Obama regime lies through its teeth, we
have no way of knowing whether torture is still practiced.

If these numerous criminal acts of the US government spread over the terms
of three presidents pass into history as unchallenged events, the US
government will have acquired squatters' rights in lawlessness. The US
Constitution will be, as President George W. Bush is reported to have
declared, "a scrap of paper."

Lawlessness is the hallmark of tyranny enforced by the police state. In a
police state law is not a protector of rights but a weapon in the hands of
government. [see Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions] The
accused has no recourse to the accusation, which does not require evidence
presented to a court. The accused is guilty by accusation alone and can be
shot in the back of the head, as under Stalin, or blown up by a drone
missile, as under Obama.
 
article continues:
How America Was Lost
By Paul Craig Roberts

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages