In a highly controversial action being closely observed by other large municipalities, the City of Angels has instituted a "pseudo" law aimed at the control of the most notorious and deadly of its many gangs. Known simply as the "18th Street Gang", they are one of the nation's fastest growing with an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 members throughout East Los Angeles. Following the lead of other California cities like San Jose, Los Angeles intends to use codes called civil injunctions to not only limit their activities, but possibly eliminate the 18th Street Gang altogether.
Civil injunctions are instruments similar to restraining orders such as might be used against labor unions engaging in illegal strike activity or in restraint of a potential, but not convicted, suspect in a domestic violence dispute. They are, briefly stated, attempts to make the court system an arm of the police in law enforcement rather than remaining within their traditional, and constitutional, role of adjudication. In the case of Los Angeles' 18th Street Gang, the "people subject to the injunction [those individuals identified as members] may not congregate in groups of two or more with other known members of 18th Street in a specified target area." They are enjoined against associating together in public or, as ABC television reported, to even "stand together in their own front yards".
As clearly as the city's actions appear to violate the clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment that says, "No person shall be...deprived of...liberty...without due process of law..." the sheer violence and barbarism exemplified by Los Angeles street gangs, appears, on the surface, as just cause for depriving those individuals of their constitutional "right...to peaceably assemble" as per the First Amendment.
The head of the Los Angeles City Attorney's Gang Unit, Marty Vranicar, informed The WINDS that, in his attempt to curb the power of the 18th Street Gang, he was targeting only specific neighborhoods, not the entire gang turf of East Los Angeles. He could not do that, he said, because it would be like "declaring martial law throughout the city," leaving the implication that he is declaring martial law in some, but not all, areas--over some, but not all, individuals-- suspending the rights of some, but not all, uncharged, unconvicted persons. Mr. Vranicar told this reporter that the residence of those neighborhoods are telling him that it works--but, in his own words, "at what price?"
In a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News, Superior Court Commissioner, Jack Gold, referring to L.A. street gangs commented that "the constitutional arguments [do not] fly, because the Constitution was written when there were no gangs...."
The California Supreme Court, in a recent decision involving the City of San Jose (People v. Acuna), decided that the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the city's gang members were secondary to the rights of neighborhood residents against intimidation by their presence. The majority opinion written by Justice Janice Rogers Brown stated, "Liberty unrestrained is an invitation to anarchy....The freedom to leave one's house and move about at will and to have a measure of personal security is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." The dissenting opinion claimed that the rights of the gang members to gather and freely associate were violated and that the terms of the injunctions against "confronting," "annoying," "challenging" and "provoking," were terms too vaguely defined. In June the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by plaintiffs against such use of injunctions thus allowing the California court ruling to stand.
The San Francisco Chronicle, in a January,'97 article, quoted San Jose Mayor, Susan Hammer as calling the state court decision a " 'tremendous victory in the fight against gangs' and said it reinforces her long time position that gang members 'are not welcome in San Jose.' " Note that Mayor Hammer says that it is the gang "members" not the gangs themselves that are unwelcome. This raises the question as to whether the mayor views the gang members as merely parts to a whole rather than individual persons with constitutional rights. It could be asked if it should not be the "members" that are welcome and their organizational activities be disavowed?
The Chronicle goes on to state that San Jose "Police Chief Louis Cobarruviaz hailed the success of the method, which he said decreased crime in the neighborhood by 54 percent."
This approach to law enforcement presents a serious question as to the possibility for the intentional misdirection of society's attention from the central issue of liberty. If reduction in crime alone, apart from any higher consideration, is the goal of this civilization (and it seems that is rapidly becoming the case), then the methods the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini exercised during World War II are to be most highly esteemed. Under his reign there was virtually no street crime, organized or otherwise, because Mussolini's regime was constrained by no constitutional rule of law but his own. If one were suspected of criminal activities, no due process was required to suspend their liberties.
Amitai Schwartz, primary attorney representing the youths in the case against San Jose, is quoted in the Chronicle article as decrying "the loss of personal liberties." "What we'll probably see more of, sprouting like wildflowers," Schwartz warned, "are more of these injunctions where law enforcement is shortcut and the courts will be asked to become an arm of the police department."
Because an estimated thirty to fifty per cent of these gangs are illegal aliens, the federal government has deported 3,000 of their most vicious members back to Mexico and El Salvador where they are actively recruiting children as young as nine years of age. This has proven very effectual in transplanting and proliferating the violent subculture spawned in East Los Angeles into, especially, the slums of San Salvador where police have neither the training nor the manpower to combat the influence.
The constitutional dilemma created by the vicious and predatory nature of urban street gangs, in conflict with any attempt to protect the rights of their individual members, poses a formidable national conundrum. This, in concert with the "hyperfocus" placed upon racial diversity and minority rights, has given rise to social conflicts among the various factions which seem to make viable the argument that the constitution cannot address such aggravated social breakdown and, of necessity, must be weakened for the very sake of preserving society. What those making this argument fail to comprehend, or admit, is that it is precisely that goal for which the conditions that breed such phenomena were created. And it is also the very reason why the system has passed into a terminal condition and has become irredeemable.
The New World Government that has been forming is immaculately successful with its methods of dividing up America into feudal states of ethnic minorities, using seemingly innocuous but powerfully effective social tools. In establishing its agenda in the major cities of the United States it uses proven techniques for disintegrating societies along ethnic boundaries. The result they are moving toward in this socio-cultural dissection is most reminiscent of ancient feudalism. By creating this they maintain the strife and friction that so effectively furthers their agenda. This has its roots, largely, in the ingeniously structured welfare system among whose first priorities was the removal of the father from the family unit. This makes it necessary for ethnic minorities to seek their father figures and their manhood in organizations rather than nuclear or extended families. These synthetic families fill the vacuum of adolescent need for "belongingness" as well as allegiance and loyalty to family.
A startling revelation of this method of fractionating society can be seen in Santa Barbara County when they selected a textbook for Latin American students that calls for the "liberation of Aztlan" by Chicanos. Adopted for a high school curriculum of Chicano Studies for the entire county, the book The Mexican American Heritage refers to the land of Aztlan which makes up the five southwest states of Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, California and Nevada. This territory was paid for and ceded to the United States from Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848.
Throughout the textbook are references consistently referring to the five American states as "Aztlan" and encouraging eventual annexation to Mexico. On page 107 is the statement, "Latinos are now realizing that the power to control Aztlan may once again be in their hands."
If one wanted to destroy the effectiveness of the single document whose principles stand in the way of a one-world government, what better way than to create and encourage a situation so terrible that the citizens of any given community would ignore those codified principles in order to secure the safety provided by their violation. In a continual sequence of masterfully orchestrated checkmates of constitutional liberties, the virtuosos of the New World Order are creating the effective strangulation of the Constitution and any other rule of law but their own. In the case of street gangs, if one is to experience any peace and security within such urban areas as Los Angeles, it has become a necessity of survival to severely weaken constitutional restraints leaving men like City Attorney Vranicar without recourse to other, less odious, options.
The combat homily of "divide and conquer" is probably among the oldest and certainly most effectively used by the New World Order.
"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 12:25.
We are now witnessing a most terrible fulfillment of that proverb.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This page is in the public domain.