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

On Iran’s History

2018 Genet­icMem­ory glob­bers joomla tem­plate