JustUs

This Is Why They Removed Civics from the Classroom!

Lakeith Smith Got 65 Years for the Death of a 16-Year-Old Killed By Police

 

Lakeith Smith Got 65 Years for the Death of a 16-Year-Old Killed By Police

As soon as I saw this story written by Marty Roney My first thought was "This is why they took civics out of the classroom." And you might say (if you're a brown person in America) I never knew it was ever in the school system. Well if you're younger than I am(at least 64 years on the planet, however, I write this on the day after my earth day so 65) it most definitely was not in the schools that you went to unless maybe you were in a school that was full of Caucasians. First, we will look at the story. With some interjections.

Click Read More to listen or read more

Audio follows

 

Best understood when you read along with the audio!

Because statements might be added after the recording of this file.

WETUMPKA — A Montgomery teenager has been sentenced to 65 years in prison on murder and theft-related convictions, in a case tried under the state’s accomplice law. (*These are not laws they are Com­mer­cial Code or so-called statu­tory codes. More on that later.)

Lakieth Smith, 18, was sentenced by Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds for his role in the crimes. Smith was convicted in March, following a two-day trial. Reynolds handed down a 30-year sentence for felony murder, a 15-year sentence for burglary (*So far so good if you do a crime which involves the theft then you should be expected to have some restitution be made to society) and two 10-year sentences for the two theft convictions (*I must admit that I have very little first-hand knowledge of the case and maybe this part is a misprint because the story only mentions one  burglary.) Reynolds then ordered the sentences to be served consecutively.

Lakeith Smith guilty of murder, other charges in accomplice law case
(*As I said these are not laws they are codes. And these codes are for commercial cases that are being used in the court system today.
As was said in the movie the matrix "Either no one ever knew or no one ever told you." In our case, it's the latter!)

Smith smiled and laughed through the sentencing, said C.J. Robinson, chief assistant district attorney. Smith flashed a broad smile as he was being led out of the courtroom in March shortly after the verdicts were announced. Smith, midtrial, turned down a plea offer that included a recommend sentence of 25 years on all charges.
(*This is psychological warfare not on Lakieth Smith but on the public in general. The idea is to cast the victim of this injustice as one so hardened by the streets that we might say he deserves what he got. And from some unthinking comments, I have heard from people being told this story they work very well)

“I don’t think Mr. Smith will be smiling long when he gets to prison,” Robinson said. “We are very pleased with this sentence. Because the sentences are consecutive, it will be a long time before he comes up for even the possibility for parole, at least 20 to 25 years.” (* Let me just say the person who made this statement and he could have red skin [which is commonly called white] or brown skin it makes no difference and believe me can come, either way, is a demon)

Smith was charged under Alabama’s accomplice law, which holds co-defendants can be guilty of murder if a death occurs when they are committing a crime, even if the accomplice is not the person who directly caused the death. (*Please notice how many times it is repeated that these codes are laws! Even though they know you don't know they want to fix it in your mind that anything they write is the law. When reality the law much like the laws of the universe are fixed and unchangeable)

Five people broke into two homes in Millbrook on Feb. 23, 2015. Smith was part of that group. Millbrook police officers responded to a call of a burglary in progress. One of the co-defendants began shooting at an officer as he entered the home. Testimony brought out that several of the co-defendants fired at the officer. The suspects left the home and ran into the backyard, still firing at the officer.

A’Donte Washington, 16, also of Montgomery, ran out of the backyard through a gate in the privacy fence. Police officer body camera footage played in court during Smith’s trial showed he (A'Donte not Smith) was armed with a 38 cal. revolver. Washington ran toward another officer, pointing the gun at the officer, the footage shows. The officer fired his sidearm four times, striking and killing Washington. (*With all the cases of unlawful killings in our community this sound like not a lawful killing because there is no such thing. However, it is such a thing as self-defense.) If this is in fact the truth!
 So that is the case and you might be asking what's my problem?
My problem is the way they have twisted the law. Here are some facts.  The broad lan­guage of Title 27, Code of Fed­eral Reg­u­la­tions, Part 72.11 makes almost all crimes whether or not they are Fed­eral or States crimes “com­mer­cial crimes.” the explanation of why this is important is too much to go over again in this article. However, there is a full explanation at  "WBAI Free speech radio, or is it?" You can find it posted on this website and because it is long and maybe not the easiest to read it is also in audio format. Please, I beg you to take the time to listen to it. What is so egregious about this law is that it transfer the deeds of one person regardless if the deed is right or wrong to another. Some of the maxims of law that is important for the common man to know will be stated at the end of this article. However, here is two most everyone knows. No one is above the law and All are equal under the Law. In this case, I would not say that the policy enforcement officer (the Policemen) is above the law because it was self-defense. However, it is not a case were all are equal under the Law. So this should bring this question up in your mind how does one defend oneself from all these egregious codes? Here are two maxim that covers this very nicely. 1. Truth is expressed by means of (or in the form of) an affi­davit. And 2. An unre­butted affi­davit stands as the truth in Com­merce. What is an affidavit?  Affidavit: A sworn statement in writing made especially under oath or on affirmation (affirmation: solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury by a person who conscientiously declines taking an oath) before an authorized magistrate or officer. Where am I going with this? Riddle me this one Batman. If Smith made an affidavit to the fact that he never harmed anyone how can it be rebutted? Just in case you didn't know the answer to that, it can't be! This all becomes easy to understand once you are grounded in the Maxim!

Maxim of Law

A work­man is wor­thy of his hire.
Legal maxim: It is against equity for a  free men not to have the free dis­posal of their own property.
(*This is also the problem with paper money, but that's another subject)
All are equal under the Law.
Legal maxim: No one is above the law.
In Com­merce truth is sov­er­eign.
Legal maxim: to lie is to go against the mind.
Truth is expressed by means of an affi­davit.
Legal maxim: (none) However in order for an issue to be known (in court) it must be writ­ten (affidavit)
An unre­butted affi­davit stands as the truth in Com­merce.
Legal maxim: He who does not deny, admits.
An unre­butted affi­davit becomes the judg­ment in Com­merce.
Legal maxim: (none … con­cept of the duel with­out weapons) see image below
A mat­ter must be expressed to be resolved.
Legal maxim: He who fails to assert his rights has none.
He who leaves the field of bat­tle first loses by default.
Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occa­sions it. (seeks being wronged)
Sac­ri­fice is the mea­sure of cred­i­bil­ity.
Legal maxim: He who bears the bur­den ought also to derive the benefit.
A lien or claim can be sat­is­fied only through rebut­tal by Counter affi­davit point- for- point, resolution by jury, or pay­ment
Legal maxim: If the plain­tiff does not prove his case, the defen­dant is absolved

Now for some history

Now please understand that when I started to write this article I woke up from a dead sleep and because I didn't start writing when I heard of it, I did not add the cause of the problem. Which is the injustice of American from its inception! So let's go back and take a look at the events that cause our youth to do some of the things that they have done. After enslavement, we were forced to live apart from society. Now, this may sound like a bad thing but we lived out the old adage. If all you have is lemons than make lemon-aid.
what do I mean? Because we were forced to live apart from the society we were forced to spend our money with ourselves. Now, what happens when the money in a community turns over in the community 4 or 5 times? If you don't know the community becomes very rich think black Wall Street. And if you don't know what that is please look this important part of your history up. I'll just say it was a very rich community in Greenwood, Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was so rich with a number of millionaires in 1921 that the wider society saw fit to burn it down. see Tulsa race riot of 1921, where a white mob destroyed much of Greenwood. However, this was not an isolated event there was also Jackson Ward, a thriving African-American business community in Richmond, Virginia and Black Wall Street (Durham, North Carolina) Parrish Street, in Durham, North Carolina, an area of successful black-owned businesses. And many other smaller cases of the same. And it is my assumption that the real reason brown people were allowed to use so-call white establishments was that of the large sums of money that would be brought into these establishments. And not because of a change of heart by the society at large. However, once the people started frequenting these establishments and demanding to be treated like everyone else they became known as uppity niggers (their term not mine). So what happened and how did brown people get placed back in the box? For that piece of the puzzle, we have to know about Redlining. What is redlining? In the United States, redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas. The best-known examples of redlining have involved denial of financial services such as banking or insurance. If you can't get a bank loan or insurance for your business then there was, as it is today very few to no businesses
to be had by brown people. And if you can't get a job in your community and the greater community refuses to allow you to work for them where does that leave you? So that old saying you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps is meaningless when someone keeps stealing the bootstraps.  the specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934. That's right this has been going on for seventy-four years and there is no real end in sight. So let us put the blame for the inner city where it belongs. It's not our children it's the situation we have been under from our enslavement with a small break when the larger society believed we could not make it.

THE SYSTEM

Please concider thinking about the way I view our plite and please concider having conversation about this with your friends and family.

Whnt to know more about these statu­tory codes?

 

 

 

Add comment

User Guide is located at here. There you can also find tags for adding media to your comment. "NEW" Or Click the ADD COMMENT link on the main menu to start or join a conversational topic.


Security code
Refresh

joomla templatesfree joomla templatestemplate joomla
2018  GeneticMemory   globbers joomla template