You are viewing an old blog post! That means that links will be broken, and images may be missing.

March 15, 2013

How the Supreme Court’s Clapper Ruling Endorses State Criminality

In This Issue:

  • Our strategic reasons for filing amicus briefs
  • A report on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Clapper case

Quotation of the Day:

“We should distinguish at this point between 'government' and 'state' … A government is the consensual organization by which we adjudicate disputes, defend our rights, and provide for certain common needs … A state on the other hand, is a coercive organization asserting or enjoying a monopoly over the use of physical force in some geographic area and exercising power over its subjects.”  – David Boaz

How the Supreme Court's Clapper Ruling Endorses State criminality
By Perry Willis and Jim Babka

We file amicus briefs for multiple reasons. We hope to…

  • Educate the Court
  • Persuade the Justices and win good decisions
  • Take advantage of the teachable moment, educating others who may read our briefs

These are all good reasons, but they're no longer our main reasons. Instead…

Our primary objective relates to events that preceded the American Revolution back in the 1700s. We want to manage our relationship with our so-called government the same way the American Colonists handled their relationship with King George III.

The Colonists repeatedly asked the King to end his criminal ways, and the King repeatedly refused. Documents like the Olive Branch Petition established the grounds for the separation that followed.

We think Americans today must increasingly take the same approach with regard to their own so-called government.

We must take every opportunity to ask every level of The State to end its criminal ways. One of two things will happen…

  • Either the agents of The State will grant our reasonable requests and things will improve, or…
  • The grounds will be established for erecting new forms of government, as called for in the Declaration of Independence.

Achieving one of these two results is the main reason we file amicus briefs.

This is also why promotes specific reform proposals, like Read the Bills, One Subject at a Time, and Write the Laws.

We want to give the agents of The State every opportunity to do the right thing.

Please also notice our continued use of the term The State, as well as the use of phrases like “our so-called government” or “the government” in scare quotes. We use these terms for the sake of accuracy…

Governments are supposed to protect rights, NOT commit crimes.

But nearly all of what our so-called government currently does is actually criminal. So we cannot honestly call it a government. Thus…

We think The State — capital T, capital S — is the more accurate term. It reflects the ominous, monopolistic, criminal, leviathan nature of the institution that rules us. We want to change this. We think…

Governments should serve, not rule.

So this is why we do what we do. Including filing amicus briefs. And recently we've had some success in using these briefs to persuade The State to reform itself in a less criminal direction.

  • Our freedom of the press argument has had increasing influence in campaign finance cases.
  • And our property rights argument won the day in the Jones case.

We had high hopes that the Jones precedent might also lead to a non-criminal ruling in the Clapper vs. Amnesty International case, for which we also filed a brief. Alas, that was not to be.

The Clapper Case

If U.S. lawyers have phone conversations with non-U.S. citizens overseas, can the federal “government” spy on those calls without a warrant?

We think such surveillance should not be allowed for electronic communications for the same reasons it is disallowed for snail mail communications. You own your mail. You own your electronic communications too. We thought our new Jones precedent would support this argument. But…

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that our side lacks legal standing to test this question. Why?

Because there is no evidence that the federal “government” has directed such spying at the plaintiffs. Notice the “Alice in Wonderland” nature of this thinking…

  • The State asked for the power to do this kind of spying and to be allowed to keep it secret, therefore…
  • We can assume that The State is doing this kind of spying, but…
  • Because the spying is a secret, the Court feels the plaintiffs lack specific cause or evidence for complaint.

We think this reasoning is both bizarre and criminal. Therefore, we declare…

The State has just taken another step to establish its own illegitimacy. The Court here adds to the evidence that new forms of government should be erected. We continue to prefer reform, but we will add this latest abuse and usurpation to a case for the institution of new government.

This brief is another step in the process, and we thank those who contributed to make it possible. We will be telling you about a new step we need to take in the Courts sometime next week. Stay tuned.

You can read the Clapper brief you helped us file by clicking this link:

Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Downsize DC

If your comment is off-topic for this post, please email us at


Post a Comment

Notice: Undefined variable: user_ID in /var/www/ on line 89

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

© 2008–2019