Reflections on Petit Treason Tying a knot on rude behavior by public servants by Dean Hazel
The following communications were stirred by the recent incident at the US-Canadian border where border police abused two Canadian citizens just for the hell of it. Dean has done a lot of thinking and reading about
the law pertaining to police and other public officers doing their duty respectful of the rights and dignity of the people they serve.
When lower public officials violate the people, they commit treason of a special kind: petit treason. The remedy for this infraction in old English law, and supported by Mr. Hazel, is hanging. Sounds harsh. I'd settle for a Truth and Reconciliation program, but if we stretched the necks of a few of the worst bad cops, prosecutors, and judges-at least those Dean and I and others have had to deal with over the years-we might achieve more polite society and a better world tomorrow.
Original letter from Dean upon viewing incident
I received the above email and listened to the recording that was allegedly done on the victim's cell phone, that based upon many of my personal experiences and the experiences of others that I know and have met, it is my personal opinion on this audio recording, that it sounds a lot like the a conversation with certain members of the Monroe County Sheriff Department, and many other state so-called law enforcement agencies.
ARMED & DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PSYCHO AUTHORITARIANS WITH GUNS, NO BRAINS, BIG EGOS, INFERIORITY COMPLEXES and NO DISCIPLINE! CANNOT READ ANY LAW THAT IS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH WITH ANY REAL UNDERSTANDING. THEY SIMPLY DON'T CARE! THEY CAN'T GET INTO TROUBLE FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST THE CITIZENS IF THEY TRIED! THEY ARE ALL JUST PART OF THE COURTHOUSE GANG! THE BOTTOM LINE IS REVENUE, NOT JUSTICE WHEN IT COMES TO THE JUST-US GANG AT THE COURTHOUSE! THEY SIMPLY ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THEMSELVES WHEN MAKING THE PUBLIC SERVE THEM!
Sincerely,
Dean S. Hazel
Next email from Dean in response to a woman trying to justify the behavior of the border cops
RE: "Why didn't he just answer the questions?"
Maybe because he did not know what stores that they would find there in that mall and would therefore be going to! Whereas a would be terrorist most likely would know just where they would be placing a bomb for maximum effect, though I sincerely doubt he would tell our border guards if he could! I found the Canadians to be pleasant and jovial and justifiably puzzled at the over reaction to a question that they could not readily answer. In their place, neither could I honestly have answered that question My point is how needlessly thin skinned too many public officials are getting to the point of outright abuse. Germany's Nazis notably were very thin skinned in their authoritarian practices. As a young American, I swore to God that I would never let that type of bad behavior go unpunished here! As a Gnostic I have no fear to die in such efforts.
As Yvonne had indicated, those guards should be sent to our southern borders. I think that would be better than sending them to Nome Alaska! I heard no threats being made except by the border guards. I hardly consider to pull oneself free from the grasp of another assaulting them, to be an assault in and of itself, though the woman did grasp and thus technically seem to assault a border guard in an attempt to free her husband from their abusive process. He was accused of assault by merely trying to free himself, from persons that seem to have lost all sense of reason in their escalating petty bigotry and authoritarian practice. Our own US Supreme Court ruled that self-defense also includes coming to the defense of another, who is being attacked and physically abused, just as the man's wife tried to do. Hollywood made a movie about it starring actor Glen Ford.
I referred this border case of these Canadians to the ACLU. I should hear from them next Tuesday according to the email that I received from one of my contacts at the ACLU of Michigan. I sincerely doubt that any claim of profiling will be made. I prefer that the ACLU work on getting true equality for us all and not just one select group, such as illegal aliens at the expense of everybody else's rights!
When public officials are arrested, tried and executed for any and all their crimes against the citizens, there will be a population reduction, as such offensives are capital ones under Article III, § 7 of the Michigan State Constitution, in laws that date back before Magna Carta and are enforceable just as in People vs. Jack Kevorkian, was in the 6th Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. Subversion of any law or the right to the protection of such, for any citizen, is a crime against the whole and corrupts and destroys the pillars of our civilization making it a crime against the citizens, petit treason. It is time for real law and order! Teach them respect, hang them all if they won't discipline themselves and act more professionally and less offensively and less petty! Federal Mob, state, county and local municipal racketeers beware!
When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.
— Pastor Martin Niemoller,
Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, vol. 114, p. 31636
I have personally known customs and border guards, and even one fellow who worked in Detroit in a federal counter insurgency force, but I have never known any as petty and asinine as these! But I am aware of some deputies in this county and other so-called law enforcers here and across this state who are just as asinine! They all hate that old police Tv show, "Adam 12" worse than "Dragnet" and they all like the added revenue that their abuses garner them through government trickle down financing from court revenue. What a racket at public expense! Who needs it when you can really defend yourself and your neighbors! If we were all armed and proficient in those arms, any would be terrorist would first have to worry about living long enough to get arrested before going to Guantanamo and trial.
The same reason that we did not want to invade Japan, was the same reason that they did not want to invade the United States, an armed citizenry. What has happened to our right to keep and bear arms as it was before WWII? Our constitutions still read the same! Is it that most cops can't read unless its comic books or are they afraid of getting shot while engaging in criminal acts? The lowest crimes per capital, are in the states where the citizens right to keep and bear arms are observed without any restrains, other than hitting what they are aiming at! Which is real gun control at its best!
Sincerely yours,
Dean S. Hazel
PS: There was a Deputy US Federal Marshall that was abusive to me, who physically assaulted and bruised me like these border guards who went after these Canadians. When I was done with him, he was a fired (dismissed) former Deputy US Federal Marshal trainee,who now cannot kill anyone at any new Wacos, Ruby Ridges, or US borders. I do what I can against any and all tyrants when and where I find them! Do you? But then, I am a real American by action and deed and not just by lip service!
Dean's email to me regarding his thoughts on petit treason, especially in connection with such incidents:
They would prefer, I am sure, to hang me first as they have figuratively done in the past! To quote Ben Franklin, "We must hang together or surely we will hang!" Isn't that just what these rogues are doing and no doubt will do even more once they discover that a means to their end has been rediscovered? In this it may be said that I have plagiarized the works of William Blackstone.
You be the judge if my editing of William Blackstone can rank as my own thoughts, for I have changed them to suit my reasoning and understanding of the original beyond the open and obvious quote that I have made of Blackstone in my text? I have attached the notes that I had edited to express my own opinion not as a quote of William Blackstone.
I regard the necessity of punishing petit treason to restore order and the obedience of our public servants as, "Meaningful Suspensions!" What seems to be missed by so-called legal scholars, either by carelessness or design, is that it is not a particular act that forms the crime of petit treason, but rather the nature of the act to erode or destroy the foundations of our civilization, which is the law and order upon which it is designed, based and dependent in order to survive with liberty and justice for all! The only thing that I have found that were ever done away with, is not petit treason, but rather certain acts that in the past were regarded and classified as such.
Your posting of my thoughts on treason, will make your Website seem even more militant. Please note that the last reference note to judges may be dropped at your leisure, as that was really just a bookmark to myself of information that I had discovered during doing that research, that I did not want to forget to look further into on the issue of the tenure of a judge. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. having stressed the need to dismiss them for bad behavior in the last lecture of his that I had attended a year ago, which is a thing rarely if ever done!
"Bad judges should have meaningful suspensions [with rope burns]!"
— Dean Hazel
"Bad prosecutors, cops, other officials should be tarred and feathered."
— Brian Wright
Dean's Article: Thoughts on the Meaning of Treason
In early England there was a system of Law, and it did occasionally punish such wrong-doing. This system of Law was the Common Law, based on the customs of society established by precedent since Saxon times, supplemented in the 15th-century by the Statutes of Parliament and, within its limitations, it was relatively efficient. It was administered by the King's Justices sitting in London who heard and determined the civil and criminal cases brought before them. At regular intervals they journeyed to the furthermost parts of the Kingdom on Assize for the same purposes.
This system had a number of defects, the chief one being that with or without the common law, the statutory law was not comprehensive; it was not so far developed that it could provide an answer to every dispute of every nature. Another defect was that the Judges were in no position to enforce their judgments against the mighty of the Land. Often, they did not even seem inclined to try; there were all too many cases where they were intimidated, or even bribed, and the weighty influence of a prominent man could decide the outcome of a case regardless of its legal merits in either common law or under the statutes of England.
It was not the case that the English despised their Law; on the contrary, they had a great respect for it, and had the reputation of being very litigious, seemingly desirous (at least in some cases), that all quarrels should be settled by its provisions. Today's concept of 'Rule by Law' however, was totally unknown in and prior to the 15th-century. 'Rule by Law' is thought to be able to answer any question via legislation, which is all-pervasive, and which obliges people to live together harmoniously, to put aside their murderous and acquisitive habits, and to settle their disputes, whatever they may be and of whatever nature in the way that the letter of the Law says they must.
Under the Norman law, there were crimes against the sovereign and crimes against the people. This formed the basis of high treason and low treason, grand treason and petty or petit treasons. In discussing the latter we must regard the historical origins of petit treason as a basis to defining this term when applying it today and preserving the social order, the real foundations of society.
Within this context from its simple origins to what was most perceived to be its most modern application, the meaning and use of such a charge seems to have been lost to license tales of lust, marital and romantic betrayals among the religiously oppressed and not to protect the people from the erosion of the foundations of an orderly society and that which is more essential to our social order and civilization than the basis of gossip and marital betrayal, such as subversion of law and the betrayal of the rights of the citizens and society that it was made to protect! For subversion of the law by itself, is not, nor has it ever been considered in modern times to be high treason!
Just plain subversion of the social order via subversion of the laws which establishes and governs it is far more important than the attention garnered by these gossip tales and charges of the subversion of a marriage by murder! See page 31 of “DANGEROUS FAMILIARS” Representations of Domestic Crime in England, 1550–1700, by Frances E. Dolan. The diversion to the assumption that petit treason is nothing more than murder is a testament to the lewd appetites of the religiously oppressed and the desire to protect public officials against justice, when their acts or deliberate failure to act so openly betray the social order, our laws, the foundations of our society, is to ignore the true scope of this law and its historical application to such acts as robbery by piracy, counterfeiting the king’s coin or merely slapping the face of a constable, distinguished from the act of assaulting a posse member or sheriff deputy.
All of these acts as well as many others not mentioned, perhaps not recorded as having ever been charged, have nothing to do with murder, but have everything to do with destroying the social order, the pillars of our civilization if tolerated as are modern day subversions by public servants tolerated today.
A social structure for such a society was of necessity based on loyalty just as today. A subordinate owed his loyalty to a superior, such as a servant to his master, a public servant to the people, a wife to her husband, and a landowner to his immediate Lord. A breach of this loyalty could be petit treason, itself a serious enough offence. In the superlative degree, all in the past owed allegiance to the King, and it was Grand Treason to bear arms against him, to disobey his directions, to thwart his designs, perhaps even to give tongue to words derogatory of him or his state.
Feudal society, and indeed that of the later medieval society which succeeded it, resembled nothing so much as a pyramid with the King at its apex. In such a society, disloyalty put the whole of society at risk, was regarded with abhorrence, and was punished most severely as subversive public officials should be punished today. Breaches of the lower allegiance, of public, private and domestic faith, were denominated petit treason. If a breach of a public trust, an oath to support and/or defend our constitutions and thereby all our laws as intended, ignorance being no excuse, a crime would have been committed more surely against the people, society, than if a wife were to murder her spouse!
Let us discern the elements of Petit Treason taken from the commentaries of Blackstone. Please note that in the original text that Blackstone writes, f stands for f, but also for s.
TREASON,
.P 75.
PUBLIC WRONGS.
BOOK IV.
CH. 6.
TREASON, proditio, in it's very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, faith the mirror b: for treafon is indeed a general appellation, made ufe of by the law, to denote not only offences againft the king and government, but alfo that accumulation of guilt which arifes whenever a fuperior repofes a confidence in a fubject or inferior, between whom and himfelf there fubfifts a natural, a civil, or even a fpiritual relation ; and inferior fo abufes that confidence, fo fortgets the obligations of duty, fubjection, and allegiance, as to deftroy the life of any fuch his fuperior or lord. This is looked upon as proceeding from the fame principle of treachery in private life, as would have urged him who harbours it to have confpired in public againft his liege lord and fovereign : and therefore for a wife to kill her lord or hufband, a fervant his lord or mafter, and an ecclefiaftic his lord or ordinary ; thefe being breaches of the lower allegiance, of private and domeftic faith, aredenominated petit treafons. But when difloylty fo rears it's creft, as to attack even majefty itfelf, it is called by way of eminent diftinction high treafon, alta proditio ; being equivalent to the crimen laefae majeftatis of the Romans, as Glanvil c denominates it alfo in our Englifh law.
As this is the higheft civil crime, which (confidered as a member of the community) any man can poffibly commit, it ought therefore to be the moft precifely afcertained. For if the crime of high treafon be indeterminate, this alone (fays the prefident Montefquieu) is fufficient to make any government degenerate into arbitrary power d. And yet, by the antient common law, there was a great latitude left in the breaft of the judges, to determine what was treafon, or not fo : whereby the creatures of tyrannical princes had opportunity to create abundance of conftructive treafons ; that is, to raife, by forced and arbitrary
The law of England removed murder and felonies from being prosecuted as Petit Treason after 1828. Long after our departure from England with English law that predated 1776 or 1787. What are the elements of Petit Treason, but breaches of the lower allegiances to the people as opposed to the king, royal family, and parliament as government.
What was the law in 1776 or 1787? Any applicable thing that they cared to prosecute. The elements were there, though the common law was not as they dwell more upon the broad broom and brush of coloring most offenses as a species of high treason itself or as contemporary felonies! Were acts not encompassing murder that could be considered Petit Treason prior to 1787 still available for the Colonial States now known as The United States of America to prosecute if they so chose to? I think so! Petit Treason was recognized as a certain type of murder by the territorial legislature of Michigan in 1833, who legislated that the punishment shall be hanging, the same as for murder and not distinguished from such.
English law is a law of precedence and statutes, existing first in the common law via precedent, and then both the common law and statutes of England. The crime of Petit Treason or parva prodʹitio, was a crime whose nature was to destroy the foundations of society. Nothing does this more than a subversion of good law, by a subversive act of a public servant owing allegiance to the people in keeping the domestic faith within the state.
The common law of England is specifically limited or expanded by statutes. Where no inference is made by statute, it remains unaffected and enforceable as its broad elements provide such construction as to protect the people with charges of Petit Treason against the subversive betrayal of their laws by their public servants, which works a crime in and of itself against all of the people of the state. For one can still destroy the life of the people without murdering them! If the people be king, subversion is treason and if not, no less than petit treason! Hang the bastards!
I regard the necessity of punishing petit treason to restore order and the obedience of our public servants as, "Meaningful Suspensions!" What seems to be missed by so-called legal scholars, either by carelessness or design, is that it is not a particular act that forms the crime of petit treason, but rather the nature of the act to erode or destroy the foundations of our civilization, which is the law and order upon which it is designed, based and dependent in order to survive with liberty and justice for all! The only thing that I have found that were ever done away with, is not petit treason, but rather certain acts that in the past were regarded and classified as such.
The only thing I feel like adding is that the Patriot Uprising
would do well, as a start to call for completely respectful nonaggressive behavior toward all nonaggressive human beings by public officials. With the penalty being, if not capital, at least severe financial restitution to those victimized. — Brian Wright, ed.
