First off I don't have a source or anything; this is just my personal opinion.
I do however read law cases constantly, nearly 12 hours a day. I never put all these dots together until just now. I would like anyone's opinion, not
just lawyers. In a lot of case law you start to see these crazy fact scenarios, like a 1/16th black guy who is completely white in appearance gets
kicked off a train b/c he's part black. This is just one of MANY odd cases there are that change the law. Then in school after you go over the case,
the teacher says oh yeah, this whole thing was staged to test the law. This is something that is very common; in this particular fact pattern it was
done by those trying to change civil rights law. These cases aren't some big conspiracy, it's admitted by the groups that do them. After reading
enough of these cases you can begin to detect them. Eventually you can read a case and go into class expecting the teacher to give some interesting
background story on how the case was set up to test the law.
What if there are cases that are set ups though that aren't admitted to? What if some cases are gov't set ups to essentially create laws through the
judicial branch, and if they get the "wrong" answer, through the legislator. I'm fairly certain that this exact thing is going on right now. From
the red link on drudge thetandd.com...
There has been a lot of big news articles out in the last week or two regarding drones. The gov't was planting a seed. They wanted you to begin to
think about drones. Read this news story carefully, it's trying to plant ideas in your mind. On to the fact analysis!
Who is the plaintiff? An animal rights group. Notice how they don't use an individual
. This is important and I will come back to it.
What was the plaintiff doing? Flying a drone
. Notice how they don't use the word helicopter
What was the drone doing? Taking a video. Notice how they avoid using the word surveillance
What was the drone surveying? People illegally killing animals. But surely you see that this is actually SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY
. This is a big
no, no and the people still know that. That is why the article is worded the way it is, to help hide the big red flag. But now that some of the big
red flag is exposed, the article will do everything it can to distract from it.
Who is the defendant? The Police
. This is a trick! This automatically turns mass public opinion back in favor for the plaintiff. A lot of
people hate police, we all know that. Using the police also causes a psychological connection linking the police to the gov't. A lot of people start
thinking gov't and surveillance... I'm against gov't surveillance, I hope the police lose.
If the police lose this case, this sets precedent
that would ALLOW
the gov't to survey us.
Time for more distractions:
The motive for the police was Revenge
The police didn't just stop them from doing it, or seize their chopper, no the police Shot It Down
The police shot into a Well-traveled road
, they are trying to make this as outrageous as possible.
Next, a small but very important detail. The shooters were in the tree cover, a small caliber gun was heard, but No One Saw
a police officer
shoot the helicopter. This means that in determining the case, the fact that it was a police officer will not play a role in deciding future cases.
This would mean that the general public also could not shoot down drones surveying their own property.
It's getting very late and i've had a long day so ill wrap it up. There is one line in here that is subliminally sending a message to the reading
that the plaintiff should win. "It didn't work; what shark was doing was perfectly legal." The person saying this is the person who did it! That
doesn't mean what he was doing was legal! That would be like if I walked up and shot guy in the face and no one arrested me. Then the next day
saying, of course I didn't get arrested, what I was doing was perfectly legal.
THIS IS A SET UP!! If you agree with this please spread the word. Get people informed. We can stop this, knowledge is power. We still have the
internet to spread our knowledge and the truth is viral. We have the power and we must still use it while we have it!