Please visit the cited URL for "CROSSING THE RUBICON" and read the October 23, 2007 TRANSCRIPTS... and the May 20, 2008 TRANSCRIPTS that lays out where the "COAST GUARD" has taken MILITARY LAW out of the Department of Defense and into the Department of Homeland Security.
The Coast Guard is saying that it is now a SPECIAL Branch of military that is not within the Department of Defense and is in DHS and still [somehow] comes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Title 10 [DoD].
This is serious.
Here is an excerpt from the transcripts.... below....
MY ISSUES are about protecting the American People from improper use, or abuse by the application of our own MILITARY FORCES, MILITARY ASSETS, MILITARY PERSONNEL, MILITARY HARDWARE and MILITARY SOFTWARE and even our MILITARY MEDICAL HEALTH "CARE" SYSTEMS to target "C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S".....
This is from the October 23, 2007 proceedings, page 9 and 10 that can be followed at the following URL... http://www.crossingtherubicon.org/images/stories/transcriptimages/1033798.pdf
22 MR. SHINE: What I did bring up, your Honor,
23 and I would like to object to that, there are other
24 issues that preempt that, jurisdictional questions that
25 must come before that, that we have officers in uniform
1 almost as if it's a JAG proceeding. They are members
2 of the JAG corps. I know Lieutenant Commander Tribolet
3 is. This gets into jurisdictional questions of the
4 military adjudicating civilian affairs.
"THE ISSUE" ?
THE US MILITARY CROSSING INTO CIVILIAN AFFAIRS - CIVILIAN JURISDICTIONS - CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES....
Please go READ the U.S. Supreme Court case law of REID VS. COVERT from 1957 that laid out [in 1957] that we have planes, trains, automobiles and more and there is NO REASON for the Executive Branch [Article II] Branch of our Government to be carrying on MILITARY TRIBUNALS of civilians, let alone even military personnel. This case law is controlling over other things like NAFTA and says that all International Agreements are a creature of the U.S. Constitution and without the U.S. Constitution would not exist and thus must be COMPLIANT with the U.S. Constitution and Amendments and our system of DUE PROCESS.......
That we are NOT to have a competing system of COURTS from underneath the Executive Branch - Article II proceedings, whether they be MILITARY TRIBUNALS or "ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS" ... period......
The Case can be found here.... read the entire OPINION of the Court as it goes back to the MAGNA CARTA of 1215 AD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
From the MAY 20TH, 2008 TRIAL BY FIRE at the Federal Fusion Center in Long Beach, Ca., a four day "trial" [or you can call it a "hearing"] HELD by a Special Branch of Military in the form of the U.S COAST GUARD that brought "CHARGES" and a "CIVIL COMPLAINT" against a man that the "Coast Guard" identified as a "C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N".....?
The May 20th, 2008 TRANSCRIPTS are available here...... http://www.crossingtherubicon.org/images/stories/transcriptimages/vol%201%20part%201.pdf
Here is another EXCERPT to the point and issue at hand.....
12 LT TRIBOLET Good morning Madam Court
13 Reporter My name is Christopher Tribolet for the
14 United States Coast Guard
15 THE COURT Mr Shine
16 MR SHINE Real quick Your Honor --
17 THE COURT Introduce yourself for the
18 court reporter
19 MR SHINE Its Lieutenant Commander
20 Tribolet I want to be correct on the record
21 LT TRIBOLET Sir that is correct
22 Lieutenant Commander United States Coast Guard
23 MR SHINE Lieutenant Eric Shine
24 United States Navy Graduated from Kings Point in
1. THE COURT Mr Shine are you lieutenant
2. in the United States Navy at this time
3. MR SHINE I am Your Honor because
4. charges were brought against me on March 2003
5. and was discharged from the Navy thereafter, I
6. believe that in any kind of court you're not
7. supposed to lose any due process rights There is
8. question and/or dispute as to the naval discharge
9. and the naval records that have been presented by
10 Lieutenant Tribolet It is matter of open
12 THE COURT Thank you sir This is not
13 military proceeding
14 MR SHINE I object Your Honor
If the COAST GUARD is a "SPECIAL BRANCH OF MILITARY" coming under the UCMJ and Title 10 [military law], and its is using men and women in UNIFORM as PROSECUTORS, and a LIEUTENANT COMMANDER in the Coast Guard as the "JUDGE" or "Administrative Law Judge" or "Hearing Officer", and COAST GUARD is the one filing the charges, and the "civil complaint", and holding the court, and having "created the court" from under "Common Law" somehow, and the Coast Guard openly declares [with a straight face] that this is "....NOT A MILITARY PROCEEDING"?
The man who said that is a LIEUTENANT COMMANDER in the Coast Guard.?
So clearly - this is minimally a POLICE COURT, if the Coast Guard is not a SPECIAL BRANCH OF MILITARY, or a MILITARY COURT being held against who the complainant [the Coast Guard] is saying is a "CIVILIAN.."
I am not the one DECLARING that the "Coast Guard" is a "Special Branch of Military" - they are.....
The Coast Guard says it now comes under TITLE 10 the UCMJ full time - and not just when they are in DOD and under the US Navy and under Title 10 - and that it is under MILITARY LAW NOW - but that it comes under a different and "special" interpretation of Title 10 and the UCMJ that is not UNIFORM for the Coast Guard and the same for all other Branches of the Military like the ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE AND MARINES and that the COAST GUARD can apply and adjudicate in its own special court system CIVILIAN LAW as applied by those coming under TITLE 10 AND MILITARY LAW.....?
That's what the issue is?
FYI - ALL CIVILIANS - THIS IS ABOUT YOU AND THE IMPOSITION OF THE "MILITARY" OVER CIVILIANS - NOT about ME...