Fired for trying to secede after employed 19 years.

The Herald Tribune refers to Tom Laughlin, a former police detective, as member of a "violent" "radical" "hate group member" because he claimed to wish to withdraw from the system to become a free person. And furthermore he was fired from his job after his boss considered him crazy.

Source: www.heraldtribune.com...

"Sovereign citizens" are people who basically believe participation in government programs should be by consent only. If you believe being forced to do things like Obamacare, Social Security, and similar programs that the government forces you into against your will, you are "crazy", "a terrorist", "violent", "radical", and "hateful" according to the SPCA. This despite the fact that the definition of terrorism, violence, and hatred, could all easily include forcing someone to hand over their money without permission such as with Obamacare.

There seem to be two types of people emerging in the USA. One group believes violence means taking people's money without their permission such as by the IRS. They believe crazy and radical means participating in systems of violence for profit such as the Iraq war. They believe hatred involves trying to control others against their will. The other group believes violence is refusing to allow your money extracted from you, refusing to be a good little slave to your owner country, and refusing to pay tribute to your "leaders" who control you.

The real violent radical hate group when you compare apples to apples is the US federal government. They are without the slightest doubt terrorists. Look how they so openly called for the *murder* of Julian Assange without the slightest hint of hesitation. If that isn't supporting terrorism I don't know what is. People think I'M CRAZY for being against this? No they are crazy because crazy people do crazy things, and surely killing people is a crazy thing. Yet I'm the one labeled crazy and I'd be the one fired from my job if I were a police officer.

As for the SPCA mentioned in the article, even their founder knows their group is a for-profit SCAM registered as an NPO that maximize the number of groups labeled "hate groups" because that is how they make their money. Anyone who disputes this can take a look at their organizations ranking in any charity tracking organization. I'm pretty sure that $100 for me, $10 for you is their companies official motto. The SPCA should be sued by anyone considering themself a sovereign citizen. Personally I AM NOT a sovereign citizen. I consider myself a slave to the machine, but also someone who is pushing for freedom for both myself and fellow human beings who contrary to what the SPCA would have you believe I do love and care for. As far as the SPCA is considered I'm the very highest order terrorist because I know they are a scam and I'm not afraid to call them out on that.

It does not say he was fired for trying to secede, it says he was found mentally unfit for his job and it really kind of seems like they had a point.

He privately worried that "Obamacare" was bad for his family, that Sarasota leaders planned to lay off police officers, and that the city might take his pension.

He was worried about his pension, paid by the STATE. So he declares himself a soveriegn person and then is surprised to lose his government job? Really now?

Then we get this

"What the paperwork was done for, was basically to get back to the roots," Laughlin told internal affairs investigators. "The Constitution. You know. And under God and back to the meat of what it really is."

So the constitution and the roots of our country were about secession? "Under God?" Where is that in the constitution? Seems a tad all over the place as well. If he wants to use a photo copy of a few pieces of silver to buy his freedom from the US, then he should expect to lose his government job. If he claims the constitution was about breaking up the Union and "under God" then he needs to spend some quiet time in a room doing some reading.

Billy Jack, is that you?

I wondered what happened to Tom.

0CD

Not to quibble but the animal rights Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) wouldn't like being confused with the political hacks from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Just sayin'.

ganjoa

Originally posted by Sinnthia
It does not say he was fired for trying to secede, it says he was found mentally unfit for his job and it really kind of seems like they had a point.

He privately worried that "Obamacare" was bad for his family, that Sarasota leaders planned to lay off police officers, and that the city might take his pension.

There are only two proper reasons to fire someone. 1) They have done a bad job or 2) They have harmed others. Its ashame you believe people should be fired for saying strange things at the office cooler, even when you have not heard both sides of the story. People can be *homeless* after losing their job, and yet you apparently feel an off-color remark is grounds to consider them mentally insane even though you have no training in mental health and even most who do seem like they are just doing guesswork without any physical testing whatsoever.

Rest assured that if someone were to write an article like that about me they would be very quickly told either to print a follow-up article with my own side of the story regarding the allegations of insanity, or be sued for defamation. (wrongful accusation of insanity). An article like that can easily lead to a much tougher time finding a job.

The boss cited that he was talking about million+ dollar "birth accounts" that he did not understand as his evidence. Surely that is 0% evidence of anything since we are not told in the article whether these accounts actually exist or not. I remember seeing something on ATS about them but not whether they actually existed. Imagine you have never researched that and find out they do exist. Then by your own definition you are possibly so crazy you deserve to be fired from you job, is that correct? Because if believing an account does exist (when it actually doesn't) is the definition of insanity, then surely an account actually existing where you claim it does not is also the definition of insanity. Although I don't agree on your definition I at least ask that you consider yourself insane and quit from your job if after looking it up it turns out these "birth accounts" actually do exist. Agreed? A simple yes or no would be perfect.

Reply to post by Sinnthia

Yes, the Constitution has references to the Deceleration of Independence, which was a secession letter to Britain.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by civilchallenger
There are only two proper reasons to fire someone.

I hope you never run your own business someday then.

1) They have done a bad job or 2) They have harmed others. Its ashame you believe people should be fired for saying strange things at the office cooler, even when you have not heard both sides of the story.

Uh...no. He is a COP that said is not subject to the laws of the state.

Sorry but if a doctor said that bood was not necessary to live, I would fire him from my medical staff just for SAYING something like that.

People can be *homeless* after losing their job, and yet you apparently feel an off-color remark is grounds to consider them mentally insane even though you have no training in mental health and even most who do seem like they are just doing guesswork without any physical testing whatsoever.

You are assuming a great deal and then attacking your own assumptions. You can do that without me.

Rest assured that if someone were to write an article like that about me they would be very quickly told either to print a follow-up article with my own side of the story regarding the allegations of insanity, or be sued for defamation. (wrongful accusation of insanity). An article like that can easily lead to a much tougher time finding a job.

Um....OK then.

The boss cited that he was talking about million+ dollar "birth accounts" that he did not understand as his evidence. Surely that is 0% evidence of anything since we are not told in the article whether these accounts actually exist or not. I remember seeing something on ATS about them but not whether they actually existed. Imagine you have never researched that and find out they do exist. Then by your own definition you are possibly so crazy you deserve to be fired from you job, is that correct? Because if believing an account does exist (when it actually doesn't) is the definition of insanity, then surely an account actually existing where you claim it does not is also the definition of insanity. Although I don't agree on your definition I at least ask that you consider yourself insane and quit from your job if after looking it up it turns out these "birth accounts" actually do exist. Agreed? A simple yes or no would be perfect.

You are not making any sense. If I were to say that the laws of the state do not apply. I may not be suitable for a job in law enforcement of government, but I could certainly work at a toll booth or coffee shop. So can this guy. I am really not sure what you are going on about. Different jobs require different things. Cops should know that laws mean something in order to be good cops.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Yes, the Constitution has references to the Deceleration of Independence, which was a secession letter to Britain.

So this cop was only referring to his secession from Britain then?

Yeah, that makes way more sense.