A Confederate Looks at the Seattle CHAZ

Theodosius

Administrator
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
495
Reaction score
299
Points
63
The RedTeam never sleeps.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ts-sue-city-for-tolerating-chaz-protest-area/


Numerous businesses and residents in Seattle, Washington, are suing the city for tolerating the CHOP zone, claiming officials were complicit in depriving them of the right to their own property.


“The plaintiffs, including a tattoo parlor and auto repair shop, emphasized in the lawsuit filed Wednesday that they were not trying to undermine the anti-police-brutality or Black Lives Matter messaging of the ‘Capitol Hill Occupied Protest,'” King 5 reported.


The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, read:

This lawsuit is about the constitutional and other legal rights of Plaintiffs—businesses, employees, and residents in and around CHOP—which have been overrun by the City of Seattle’s unprecedented decision to abandon and close off an entire city neighborhood, leaving it unchecked by the police, unserved by fire and emergency health services, and inaccessible to the public at large. The City’s decision has subjected businesses, employees, and residents of that neighborhood to extensive property damage, public safety dangers, and an inability to use and access their properties.
Business owners also claimed protesters threatened them with retaliation if they painted over their graffiti, adding they wanted to hold officials accountable for their role in allowing violence, assaults, noise pollution, and damage.


The lawsuit continued:

The City’s policies have effectively authorized the actions of the CHOP participants. The City has communicated clearly to CHOP participants that they may indefinitely continue occupying the streets in the area, maintaining their barricades, and blocking traffic, all without interference from the City.
Calfo Eakes LLP, the law firm representing the group, said in a statement “The result of the City’s actions has been lawlessness,” according to the Seattle Times.


“There is no public safety presence. Police officers will not enter the area unless it is a life-or-death situation, and even in those situations, the response is delayed and muted, if it comes at all,” the firm continued.


Following shootings that left one person dead over the weekend inside CHOP, also known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), Mayor Jenny Durkan (D) indicated Monday the protest area would be shut down.


“The cumulative impacts of the gatherings and protests and the nighttime atmosphere and violence has led to increasingly difficult circumstances for our businesses and residents. The impacts have increased and the safety has decreased,” she stated.

-30-
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allegory

Theodosius

Administrator
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
495
Reaction score
299
Points
63
I think the matter will fall squarely within 'equal rights', 'equal protection under the law' and 'civil rights' -- some Seattle city residents are receiving police protection, and some aren't, yet the tax burden falls, allegedly, equally or equitably on both groups.


About as clear a case of arbitrary 'discrimination' between citizens as possible. However, the court may decided that the government decision has a 'rational basis' in a 'legitimate government interest' (keeping peace in Seattle):


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

Permissible Discrimination

Before proceeding, it is important to remember that a government is allowed to discriminate against individuals, as long as the discrimination satisfies the equal protection analysis outlined below, and described in full detail in this Santa Clara Law Review article.


U.S. Constitution

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.


Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.


Equal Protection Analysis

When an individual believes that either the federal government or a state government has violated that individual's guaranteed equal rights, that individual is able to bring a lawsuit against that governmental body for relief.


Based on the type of discrimination alleged, the individual will first need to prove that the governing body actually discriminated against the individual. The individual will need to prove that the governing body's action resulted in an actual harm to the individual. After proving this, the court will typically scrutinize the governmental action in one of several three ways to determine whether the governmental body's action is permissible: these three methods are referred to as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis scrutiny. The court will determine which scrutiny the individual will be subject to, relying on legal precedent to determine which level of scrutiny to use. It is important to note that courts have combined elements of two of the three tests to create an ad hoc test.
Click to expand...
Note also:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review


The concept of rational basis review can be traced to an influential 1893 article, "The Origin and Scope of American Constitutional Law," by Harvard law professor James Bradley Thayer. Thayer argued that statutes should be invalidated only if their unconstitutionality is "so clear that it is not open to rational question."[11] Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a student of Thayer's, articulated a version of what would become rational basis review in his canonical dissent in Lochner v. New York, arguing that "the word 'liberty,' in the 14th Amendment, is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law."
Rational Basis review is a logical consistency test, not an evaluation of the desirability of the policy (which is the function of a legislature). In this case, there is no legislation to review, but executive procedure here is quite substantive, and quasi-legislative (enough to deprive some people, perhaps inequitably, of fundamental rights and equal protection under the law).


I would guess the strongest part of the case would likely be the absence of 'due process', even if there is a compelling state security interest. Also, 'freedom of movement' as a fundamental right. There is no compelling state interest in restricting movement of some residents -- for example, the state is not engaged in constructing a highway through the CHAZ, based on its eminent domain. Rather, the 'interest' of the executive seems to be abandoning its mandate to protect the public altogether.


A fair and reasonable person would say the decision to allow the CHAZ in that particular place, including the abandonment of the East Precinct, was both arbitrary and capricious. Defunding or Disbanding the municipal police will likely have similar constitutional and civil rights implications, as some citizens of the State of Washington will be 'differently protected', again on an irrational basis.


Interested persons might also want to read up on the history of 'selective incorporation'[1]


[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
 

Theodosius

Administrator
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
495
Reaction score
299
Points
63
One key insight, relevant to the Confederacy is:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause


The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.
That is, the Union constitution as it currently exists in legal practice is contradictory: the 14th amendment was framed with the legislative intent that none of the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights were enforceable against the states -- it is thus a logical non sequitur and a perverse reading even of the Reconstruction Amendments, to simultaneously interpret the 14th amendment against itself by 'selective' (current law) or 'total' (a la Hugo Black) inclusion, allowing the enforcement against State Sovereignty of the Bill of Rights pertaining, like a treaty, to the Con-Federal organisation of those States.


The alternative solution to 'selective inclusion' of the Reconstructive amendment, is to apply at the *citizen* (individual and personal) level.


The key 'metaphysical' question is that of the 'civil rights' of legal persons (including corporations), and also whether states may be treated as corporations, and thus persons with privileges and immunities. That is, is the Leviathan, the 'Patriarch of Patriarchs' or 'Father of Fathers' a person in its own right?


To remind 'what is a person' in First Philosophy: a person is a supposit (and thus, an individual substance) having a rational nature. (Famous definition of Boethius)[2] Thus, even in Western, Scholastic philosophy (and Boethius was an Orthodox, Catholic Christian), corporations and States cannot be real persons, because they are neither individual subject (supposits), nor do they possess a nous or Intellect of their own.


[2]: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/person-philosophy


Another note is the implicit question of what the rights are -- are they the enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights or the 'un-enumerated rights' of the Common Law. Since the framers of the original constitution did not envision it being interpreted in the framework of the Common Law -- a key innovation and indeed novelty or novella of the Marshall Court -- each State originally being the sole venue for the exercise of Common Law, like so many sovereign nations. The creation of the Union as a 'dual common law' Republic of Republics, with Common Law used both at the Federal and State level, is one of the fundamental legal paradoxes driving us back towards Confederacy.

(You can read about the initial response of the state of Virginia to the novelties of the Marshall Court, in the appendix to Tucker's edition of Blackstone, here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190407103203/https://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

)

In this minefield of Common Law, we have a host of paradoxical questions: how may Federal Citizens have Common Law rights, yet the States have a different tier of Common Law rights that might conflict, in detailed interpretation, with the former set of rights?


Because of the original logical inconsistency of the Marshall court, in incorporating 'common law' into the Federal Judiciary, or as the framer of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly phrased it:


I hope the gentleman now knows why I changed the form of the amendment of February, 1866. Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[10]
... we are in quite a legal pickle and from a contradiction, of course, any conclusion -- indeed all possible and mutually self-contradictory logical conclusions -- immediately follows. Logically, it follows, that anyone may be killed by another person with impunity. Or that black men may be lynched at the whim of the mob. And also, that they may not be.


So, in a sense Hugo Black was correct -- but he is contradicted in two ways, not just one. Not only is his 'total inclusion' doctrine contradicted by the current legal practice of the Union, but the Union has also overthrown the underpinning of the 14th Amendment that Bingham intended.


You will note, however, that Bingham hedged even this clear statement with 'chiefly defined' and to this day, the matter is not really resolved. Indeed, anyone approaching the topic at all must hedge -- because the Reconstruction Amendments, added to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and its subsequent Judicial interpretation in the Marshall Court (accepted by the Confederacy, which is among other reasons why the Confederate constitution was lightly revised for clarity from the Union one, in certain key passages) ... must be approached as any paradox, with a fully English appreciation of the ambiguity required of a Public Faith that is manifestly illogical, but serviceable nonetheless. After all, we possess a Common Law that professes to be the laws of Edward the Confessor, yet was administered by Norman judges speaking only Law French.


Or, as one recorder put it:


Richardson Chief Justice de Common Banc al assises de Salisbury in Summer 1631 fuit assault per prisoner la condemne pur felony, que puis son condemnation ject un brickbat a le dit justice, que narrowly mist, et pur ceo immediately fuit indictment drawn per Noy envers le prisoner et son dexter manus ampute et fix al gibbet, sur que luy mesme immediatement hange in presence de Court.
which says something about the Common Law Rights of your typical Englishman. #JustAngloThings

This series published here:

 

Theodosius

Administrator
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
495
Reaction score
299
Points
63
Just when you think your Tyranny is safe...

Happy Second War of Independence Day, America!


Remember: The Red Team never sleeps.[1]

You have been selected to help serve your Country.
Never retreat from the battlefield [Twitter, FB, etc.].
Use other platforms as a form of centralized command and control.
Organize and connect [bridge through linking].
Source meme(s) material from battlefield and/or garage [highlight & share][take & drop]
Mission 1: Dispute [reject] propaganda push through posting of research and facts
Mission 2: Support role of other digital soldiers [one falls another stands (rises)]
Mission 3: Guide [awaken] others through use of facts [DECLAS 1-99 material and other relevant facts] and memes [decouple MSDNC control of info stream] _ask 'counter' questions to initiate 'thought' vs repeat [echo] of MSDNC propaganda
Mission 4: Learn use of camouflage [digitally] _primary account suspended-terminated _use of secondary
Mission 5: Identify strengths / weaknesses [personal and designated target(s)] re: Twitter & FB [+other] example re: meme(s) failure to read through use of ALGO [think Tron (MCP_master control program)] _dependence on person-to-person capture [slow response time unidentified user(s)]
Game theory.
Information warfare.
Welcome to the Digital Battlefield.
Together we win.
Q
[1]: an opposing viewpoint:
 

Theodosius

Administrator
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
495
Reaction score
299
Points
63
Originally posted by il ragno
Frankly TBB [ a member of the Circle of Crust webring] being down is irritating but not fatally. I only wish reality itself could be shut down on a TOS violation. (Lodged by God Almighty, of course.)


This is von Clauswitz shit... total fuckin' war.... I'm gonna pull the whole thing down.... I'm gonna bring the ... Temple down on your head... It's gonna be Biblical.

'The Samson option'

https://qmap.pub/read/3828
 
Last edited: