It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Coup in progress to pass legislation?

page: 1
20

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
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 ALLOWthe 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 Sawa 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!




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 


Very interesting!! I read that article too and I didnt even notice but now that you mention it. Thats exactly why that news story was created...

I dont want predator drones above my house!



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 


Hectic analysis friend
I don't know law very much (only did some contracts law through studies). But obviously public opinion will be favorable towards the "animal rights group" SHARK - Hmmm... So what lies in a name - A wolf in sheep's clothing?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I'd like to add to your wonderful analysis. I've noticed the imprinting of "key" words in articles by the MSM too. Words like Insurgent, terror, armed. There have been a few times where I see these words pop up in strange places. Example, they called Ron Paul an insurgent on national TV once because of his tight and strong following. It seemed as though they're going to connect the dots between insurgency, terrorism, and Ron Paul. When we make this inference, we can see why they always seem to call Ron Paul's followers a "small group of followers" and why they call Ron Paul's ideas "extreme". Tie this knot together with the FBI's recent home grown terror ordeal, which basically labels our Founding Fathers terrorists, and the puzzle pieces almost fall right into place. It's almost getting predictable.

Things like this are becoming more and more apparent. It also seems like movies and TV shows give us this same form of programming, where key words and ideas are always in place for future reference.
edit on 18-2-2012 by dadank because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Exactly Dadank. I've been noticing this more and more lately.
This news article just took it to the extreme.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Great thread.
So, essentially, we have a "model" of how laws can be made in the courts.
These conspirators divide into two camps, one suing the other. The identities of the plaintiff and defendant are carefully determined (entities), the facts of the case carefully controlled (official stories), and the arguments in the case carefully written (propaganda), to achieve the preconceived goal of the conspirators (another control or reporting mechanism).
Once a model is designed to define the conspiracy, then it would be easy to determine how widespread this is.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Exactly! It's great to see that everyone is able to realize this. We need to get the word out. My title is worng, it should be "coup in progress to set precedent?" Everyone thinks only the legislator makes the law. There are ways for all 3 branches to make laws. The gov doesn't want to go through the legislator on this, it would be very hard and obvious to the people. They are trying to use the back door and go through the judical branch. It's an extremely smart move on their part. But, if enough people become aware of this and call them out on it, it could back fire on the gov't. If the court rules that it was okay to shoot down the drone, then the gov't just shot itself in the foot.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Does anyone have any more info on this subject?
Anyone live around the area ect.?
In local news anywhere?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 


Very astute depth in reading/interpreting there. Bravo!



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Op, I like your presentation on this case.

But I wonder if this Shark case may be too late, due to this.

Drones Set Sights on US Skies



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
S&F

Great Post.

I am a person who loves putting the pieces together to see the whole picture, and this post makes total sense to me.

I 100% believe the government is doing everything in it's power to gain total control over the population.

Not even Orson Welles could have dreamed it would be this bad.

People seem to think that we are headed towards a "Big Brother" type of situation.

We are already there, and those that don't yet see it, are just "programmed" to not see it.

Don't worry though, Big Brother is your friend and is only there to protect you from your thoughts. You Must trust "Big Brother" or you could "get hurt" or "disappear". Trust them, rely on them, learn from them.

But above all, Don't question them.

Welcome to America Land of the "programmed".



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cbvh27
 

Excellent and well thought out information and opinions, cbvh27. I absolutely agree that this case is intended to use a back door method of passing legislation which has become more and more inevitable as more people are noticing drones being used in their local areas.

I personally live in a very hazardous and attractive target area for those intending to do the public harm (NY area) and posted my first drone sighting over the NY Hudson river almost a year ago. I finally stopped posting my observations because I got fed up by the repeated criticism I received by various disinfo agents, but there has not been more than a night or two that I haven't noticed multiple drones over the Hudson. In this instance, I do believe they are surveillance drones intended to keep watch on some very vulnerable targets but nevertheless, I know for a fact that more and more people are noticing and discussing these flying objects every day and it was only a matter of time before this type of insidious legislation was passed in as inconspicuous a manner as possible. Also, the question needs to be asked about what the drones' true capabilities include should they encounter what they perceive as a threat.

A well earned S & F to you for connecting these particular dots...

I believe that people need to be more aware of what's happening in our skies and if it's at night (which is when I usually notice them), don't just pass it off as an "oddly twinkling star" (a comment I've seen many times) and bring it to the attention of your friends and neighbors. The more aware and vocal we become, the less likely they'll have a free pass to use these drones for purposes that are contrary to true public well being.

TG



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Herenow, i agree w/ you, they have already started using the drones. But i think they are afraid that they will get sued in the near future. Having this case on the books will give them precedent. If they get sued they can just wait until the ruling on this case. A type of back up plan.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Herenow - U got me thinking. You're right, this case isn't to set precedent for the gov't. I think it could be to set precedent for corperations. IE: google spying. :S



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Non-navigable airspace above private property (0-500') is considered a component of that same private property. Navigable airspace belongs to the federal govt. and the FAA. Just as underground is yours to extract water via a well from. There are other mineral rights laws in effect, however. Your property is a 3D structure not a 2D length/width surface dwelling plane. The government takes over above and below the surface at a certain trigger points, both state and federal.
edit on 20-2-2012 by tkwasny because: Addition



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   


Welcome to America Land of the "programmed"


You are absolutely right, this has been in development for years and it's already complete with some groups of people.

This is exactly the type of devious yet simple strategy that reeks of republicans. Knowing that they have a huge cadre of lawyers (though they always demonize lawyers in public) and that they use the lawyers to make public (and private) policy this makes perfect sense.
edit on 20-2-2012 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20

log in

join