A New Law against Despotism, As Such

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Here is the Irish national anthem, as written by Peadar Kearney in 1910, in English;

Soldiers are we,
Whose lives are pledged to Ireland,
Some have come from a land beyond the wave,
Sworn to be free, no more our ancient sireland
Shall shelter the despot or the slave;
Tonight we man the Bearna Baoil
In Erin’s cause come woe or weal,

‘Mid cannon’s roar and rifle’s peal,
We’ll chant a soldier’s song.

I extract the words "No more our acient sireland shall shelter the despot or the slave." And I now alter them, for purposes of a new (US) law, to say "No more our oppressors to have their fun, We'll crim-in-al-ize despotism as such."

I got the idea for this while reading about the persecution of Russell Pridgeon and Patrick O'Dea in Australia, which took place from 2014 to 2024. I should have thought of it earlier when reading about the vaccination mandates in the US in 2021. Or the production of a false-flag operation at Port Arthur in 1996. Or the wholly unconstitutional establishment by Congress of a "Department of Education" in 1979.

That is to say, I notice a centralizing of power and a violation of constitutional restraints by governments in the two countries of which I am a citizen: US and Australia. I have often written about the aforementioned events, using a perspective of "Oh, look how government is using deception, or is kowtowing to outside forces, or is twisting the law so it can punish innocent people, etc."

It did not occur to me till today that such acts should be criminalized as such. Granted there are various laws in place that criminalize certain things that an official (as well as a citizen) may do. These include the commission of treason, genocide, and war crimes, all of which carry the death penalty. I have often written of the fact that no government person in US is ever indicted for those things since the "indicter" is itself a governmental body.

Such "escapement" was anticipated in the codification of American federal law. Title 18 of the United States Code ("USC") identifies all crimes that come either from common law or from Congressional legislation, and specifies the punishment. The following is from 18 USC 3:

"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the US has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

"Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or ... fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both."

An example: Let's say Jeffrey Epstein committed a theft that would have landed him a $40,000 fine, but DoJ attorney Mary Smith, "assist[ed] the offender to hinder or prevent his apprehension...or punishment". She, being an accessory after the fact, would be fined $20,000.

That is good to know, and it could even be used in the matter of Epstein being given a too-light sentence in 2007. But once again there is the problem of bringing Mary Smith to book. She is among the brethren, so to speak, and gets protected.

I will also admit that the law is aware of the temptations that all politicians are under, so it seeks to criminalize their indulging in such things. Thus, under 18 USC 201 "bribery of public officials and witnesses," we find:

"1 C. Whoever (1) B. being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;..3 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

Granted, two years is not much of a punishment if, say, a senator or a Cabinet member took a bribe to do a terrible thing, but he can be punished more for proceeding to do that terrible thing; this is only about his receiving the payment.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that there are laws that codify as crime "the abuse of power," such as 18 USC 241. And some sins of the judiciary are called "abuse of process." An example of abuse of process is "malicious prosecution." And surely a judge can deserve the death penalty if she knowingly sends an innocent person to execution.

In Australia, there is the crime of "conspiring to defeat the course of justice." Dr Russell Pridgeon was accused of it. He had helped a mother break the law by saving her children from their abusive father. The police and the courts and the media went all out to show the public that Pridgeon was a baddy -- in order to cover up their own participation in the crime of child-trafficking. Talk about conspiring to defeat justice!

Eventually the tables may be turned and the government be seen to have been conspiring to defeat justice. But that day has not yet come. Folks are jaw-dropped when they hear about the trial of Pridgeon and O'Dea but so far each person is at a loss to know what to do. Actions "against government" can be met with violence (all in the name of "law," of course.)

One more thing should be mentioned about the way things are set up to frustrate any attempt at bringing the real wrongdoers to book. Namely, we are told that there is a simple enough way to oust bad leaders -- vote them out at the next election. But in Australia, all candidates for office need to be pre-selected by a Party, and the two parties are not lilkely to challenge the status quo. And in US the great invention of election software puts every winning candidate's win in doubt.

No More Despotism

Now let's get back to the Irish national anthem. It says, in effect, "We're not going to put up with despotism." That may be a great statement of patriotism but when a despot has fabulous resources with which to despotize, a declaration is not enough.

Our current situation is more like a war scenario where one side has very little manpower but invincible weapons, and the other side has huge manpower but only sticks and stones.

Luckily, humans like to solve problems. Our biggest problem today is that this war scenario isn't openly expressed as war. It gets wordsmithed back into something much less vital, much less in need of everyone's attention. So what to do? Consider:

"Mid cannon’s roar and rifle’s peal,
We’ll chant a soldier’s song."

Personally, I don't own a gun. I lack the strength to even wield a kitchen knife. I want (in US) to see the men who joined up as cops and soldiers, fight on the right side of this war, which is against criminals and enemies of the nation.

Naturally they won't want to break the law, as it is dangerous for them to do so. (And worse they have, a priori, surrendered some of their manliness by joining an organization where "Obey orders from above" is a fixed principle.)

Ah, then what of the Marine's Hymn:

"First To Fight for Right [as in that which is right] and Freedom, and To keep our honor clean,
We are proud to wear the title of United States Marine."

Don't worry, guys, we will supply you with a big principle: "Disobey putrid orders."

And cops don't have to break any laws to help us fight the despots, as we'll have a new anti-despot law. Wait a minute, will courts support it? Hmm. Who needs courts? This anti-despot law will include its own juridical thingamajig.

Barring "inclement weather,' I hope to provide the text of that proposed law soon. Anyone wanting to advise me on it, please email MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com

The link below brings you to a fascinating report of court behavior in Australia in February 2024, regarding Dr Pridgeon's case.