Cambridge, Md - "We can tweak the laws however we want" pierced me like a hot knife when I heard those words as I listened to the voice on the other end of the phone. You would think that this was some high-echelon law maker, a delegate or representative of some kind; but no, this was nothing more than a Municipal (Corporate) City code-enforcer. "Whoa, what do you mean?" was my first response, then came the fire in me and I snapped "No you can not!"
Me and Todd Parks have an established respectful relationship. He does his code-enforcing in the City of Cambridge, and gives me information on properties that I may be interested in, and may help me in other minor ways or at least tries to point me in the right direction, if he can't help. Make no mistake about it though, I have never been cooled by the idea of our harmonizing relationship. I know that at the end of the day, he is paid to perform a certain service, and will do so with out regard for friendship or familiarity, and that's what I expect.
Having concluded that he was in the least an honest person, what I did not expect was for him to make such a statement to me. While knowing from our previous conversations how I feel about corruption in any governing institution, for him to say such a thing to me revealed to me that he aligns with those that are a part of the problem.
If and whenever any governing entity enacts or acts upon any policy that contradicts or is in direct violation of any of the founding principles of this country (the core laws known as the Constitution), the people, that is, the citizenry, as patriots, in their patriotic duty, and as an intelligent and informed populace should and must defy such policies and practices. This is what distinguishes a free nation from that of an enslaved one; the question of wherein lies the final and ultimate authority, which is supposed to be with us.
I say this because when on any level an agent of the government, or any subdivision of it, including employees of a department of a city / municipal government says or even thinks that the law is only whatever they determine it is, whenever they do and however they do at that particular time, it is without a doubt that they will behave in the same manner; and that is where the problems lie as it therefore affects you and me, the everyday person. You don't see or think so?
This conversation between me and Todd Parks was because of my SUV that was parked on the paved lot of a tax-paying private property owner, one Mr. Monroe Smith or "Copper Head" as he is affectionately called. Mr. Smith tolerates, and I do emphasize the word Tolerate the public using and even parking on his lot. He especially allows the church goers on Sundays to use it. Beyond that, I had no room in my driveway for another vehicle and he allowed me to park on his lot.
This is my personal use SUV and for work i mostly used my pickup truck so it was in the driveway closer to the house; I therefore, rarely drove the SUV. So on the morning that I came out to use the SUV I found that an orange sticker (as pictured below) had been placed upon the windshield. This read that i had a certain amount of time to move or purchase registration plates from the DMV for the vehicle or it would be towed. This was signed a Hal Davis, the code-enforcement officer of Easton, Maryland. A completely separate town in another county! So that's what made me call Todd who was the same thing for our town.
The claimed grounds for the declaration of the sticker was that my Navigator did not have registration plates for any state, and that therefore, if i did not move it, they, city code enforcement department, would tow it, at my expense. My first reply about this to Todd was "okay fine, I will put it in the driveway behind my work truck," but he told me that I could not do that either; that they would still come and tow my vehicle; and that's when the activist in me awoke again. I told Todd that I was not accepting that and that if they indeed tried to do such, that i would introduce them to the Constitution and specifically, the 2nd Amendment!
Now I know what those of you who know something about the Second Amendment are thinking, "Aayyatta you cannot just go around threatening government officials" and that I was not doing. What you must understand is that regardless of what we have and continue to go through in America, especially those of us who descend from slaves, we are citizens, so although the paradigm has been inverted socially and civilly, we do not answer to government, they are supposed to answer to us.
That being said, what i said to him was not about the face value situation, but an underlying understanding on my part that what they were saying and threatening to do to me was in contradiction to the "highest laws of the land" (the Constitution, which supposedly cannot be superseded by any other laws of any type); and is therefore illegal. Where the Constitution restricts the government or any smaller portion of it from taking private property from citizens without due process and adequate compensation, as the fourth (4th) Amendment declares, I correctly saw this as an abuse of their power to make regulations (their power to make and enforce city / municipal ordinances, which are civil in nature) to justify what any minimally intelligent person would clearly see as a crime.
As a citizen being subjected to a crime against myself, those under my care and protection, and or as is in this case, my property, I wanted them to understand that it was my every intention to act in the manner for which the 2nd amendment is intended; self defense and protection from crime in any and every form, and no matter by whom we are subjected to it. Succinctly, i saw this as a crime being committed against me, via my property, and i would treat them, anyone who tried to make good on the threats to steal my property, like such.
What they were threatening to do was in fact a crime, and i wanted them to see this also, in the hope that they would stop the practice. I challenged them to show me how their position was legal, and i explained to them that it was not. I told them: "You can't just take someone's property, because they won't do with it as you say, when and how you say. That's theft! The fact that you say I will have to pay to get it back or it will be sold and I will not get the money, that's extortion; and that you are claiming that your city ordinances give you some right to do this, when it clearly violates the constitution proves without doubt that you all are running a criminal racket here!"
What i told Todd Parks made him hesitate, because he clearly understood what i was saying. He then relied upon the old Nazi justification for crimes against humanity: "i am [was] only following orders," and he tried to counter with that he has nothing to do with the politics. My reply was that the politics was "the basis for justifying what you are doing." but given his attempt to sidestep liability, i began my endeavor to take this as high as i need to go. I asked who specifically was responsible for this particular ordinance and Todd referred me to the City council. I began planning to address them.
Now what you must understand is that everything about what they are doing is in fact criminal in nature, and illegal as a question of law. it's really common sense when you give a little look at it. "Theft" is by definition: "the action of crime of stealing" and "Stealing" is: "to take another person's property with permission or right an without intention to return it." Now the definitions of extortion are equally as clear: "The practice of taking something, especially money through force or threats." So didn't they threaten to tow my vehicle? if I did not purchase registration plates from a private business (the DMV) and make me give them money for it? or to sell it for money if i did not pay for its return? So what then is the definition of a criminal racket? It says: "An illegal activity, such as bootlegging or extortion of money from legitimate business people by threat or violence."
