Planning on Overthrowing the government? It's a Crime!

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384

Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

You could be subject to a fine. Or you could be jailed for up to 20 years.

Sorry, your little song and dance with the Declaration of Independence doesn't cut it. It in fact is a crime to conspire to bring down the United States Government by force. Sorry internet revolutionaries. But those are the facts. In fact in a way you are putting a lot of liability on the ownership of ATS for discussing such things on a public forum.

So it is okay for governments to commit crimes, but when regular citizens want to re-implement the constitution it is a crime? Go check the facts.

reply to post by Equinox99


Those are the facts. If you are conspiring to overthrow the United States government by FORCE it is indeed a crime under Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 § 2384. It's Seditious Conspiracy.

That is one of the charges against the people that were arrested in those recent raids on that Militia group.

Think of how many threads here have been started by internet revolutionaries about how they want to overthrow the government. People who agree with them and support them are what are known as Co Conspirators. And it is illegal and it can get you into a lot of trouble if the government decided to come after you.

reply to post by whatukno




DOUBLE POST PLEASE REMOVE

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by whatukno




I actually agree with you but I have to wonder about your intentions?


I think you like to lump all of us together so we fit nice and neat into the box you have made in you mind. Most people I know are conservative and do not want a revolution. They want simple things that I think we all want regardless of political affiliation. We all want our families to be safe and happy and to have a way to earn money legally.



But I think to you it is something more then pointing out the obvious it is more about winning. What exactly are you trying to prove and to who are you trying to prove it?

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

There was a thread about this a while back stating in one city(or was it state?) that required one to obtain a license if they were planning to overthrow the government.

Thanks for the showing of this law and hopefully someone can remember the thread I mentioned and link it for us!

EDIT:
Just remembered the name of the thread!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

South Carolina requires "subversives" to send in a $5 registration fee to be subversive or face a $25,000 fine or up to 10 years in prison.

[edit on 3/30/1010 by TheBloodRed]

reply to post by Subjective Truth

I actually agree with you but I have to wonder about your intentions?

It's simple, if you are making a thread about how you want to promote your side's candidates this year to take back congress, or how you don't like the way this government is being run, or how you feel that the government is doing things that are unconstitutional, or how you think that Obama is the anti-Christ, Muslim, Kenyan, communist, fascist, socialist, second coming of Hitler. That is free speech. it's protected under the constitution and it's fine.

If you make a thread (or post) about how you are going to overthrow the government in a violent way, start a revolution, secede from the union, kill politicians, etc. that is in fact a crime.

I don't think a lot of people here understand the distinction.

reply to post by whatukno


Please save the tears and lets stay on topic. I think you have just as much right to say whatever you want as I do.


But when I see you posting the same thing over and over again it starts to look like propaganda. I just want to know why you have taken such a vested interest in this. Why is it so personal to you?


It is like you are poking a dog that is fenced if you get my drift and I want to know why?

reply to post by whatukno


actually, the courts have an order of precedence.

if the older standing law is not repealed and in conflict with a new law, the older standing law is upheld.

last time I checked, the declaration of independence hasn't been repealed.

the declaration is also organic law, meaning its a foundational law document our nation's other laws and government are predicated on.

thus, the law you cite is null and void.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by whatukno


Hey, I just found a nice law myself, check this out.

Here we go folks, time to use their laws against them.

If the states win the case on the un Constitutionality of the Mandated Health Care bill, we have the whole kit and kabootle.

The country has been saying this is un Constitutional. The country has asked the representatives if this is un Constitutional.

Let me show you THE LAW.

From this site-Violation of Oath of Office and Walker v Members of Congress

In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.



Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.



The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.



Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.



In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.”



The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.



The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution.

Besides this law, I would like them charged with this law.

From this site-CONSPIRACY 18 U.S.C. 371

makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What happens to the criminals when the US Supreme Court declares it un Constitutional?

Maybe Barrack should not have tried to give the Supreme Court crap just a few weeks ago, hmmmmm?

reply to post by mnemeth1


What do you think of my post?

Pretty cool huh?

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Because I like coming to ATS. I really do, but lately there have been some people on here that are advocating very dangerous ideas. And I want to keep coming to ATS.

It's like if our Fascist friend and Anarchist friend here decided to conspire to overthrow the government. They could potentially be charged under this law and either be fined or jailed for 20 years.

[edit on 3/30/2010 by whatukno]

so what your saying is if one person plans to over throw the goverment then its all good with them? well let me put my 2 cents in here and say that the goerment isnt always right and if i planned anything you would never know because i wouldnt put it on the internet and the fact i know there are alot of people who plan things that never get done and as far as liability for ats how can any of this be a plan to overthrow the goverment its just and open discission and this whole constution thing is really flexible for the goverment when it needs to be so why cant we bend the rules a littler?

Is it illegal yet to put a curse upon a government and president and congress and senate? Is it illegal to use our collective consciousness to bring down the fall of socialism around the world so that we can all be free to live our own lives again, like back when this country was originally formed, when land was practically free, and our labor wasn't taxed? This country was founded by those that wanted to escape what we now have today. Today, the USA is a corporation, and we are its slaves. Make no mistake about that much. Those of you that hate big greedy mismanaged corporations should be hating this government we have today because it's the biggest greedy corporation of them all on this planet.

The greatest part of this is that no one needs to destroy the government.
It is doing a fine job of that on its own.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

Because I like coming to ATS. I really do, but lately there have been some people on here that are advocating very dangerous ideas. And I want to keep coming to ATS.

It's like if our Fascist friend and Anarchist friend here decided to conspire to overthrow the government. They could potentially be charged under this law and either be fined or jailed for 20 years.

[edit on 3/30/2010 by whatukno]

Fair enough thank you and to tell you the truth I agree. I believe change should come form voting and if that fails then I think we need to re-evaluate the situation.

And revolution will only work if the people are truly suffering. Look around and tell me what you see. It is bad but it is not bad enough. My problem is that I think they might be trying to make it bad enough to get this very situation.

I know you are on the other side but do you see something wrong. Why don't they start to really fix the economy? Why are we still fighting endless wars? And what about the patriot act? Something is very wrong and you guys and gals on the other side need to start seeing it. PLEASE



And thanks for your honesty flag for you.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by killer4281

so what your saying is if one person plans to over throw the goverment then its all good with them?

I am saying that is not a conspiracy.

as far as liability for ats how can any of this be a plan to overthrow the goverment its just and open discission and this whole constution thing is really flexible for the goverment when it needs to be so why cant we bend the rules a littler?

I just don't want ATS to be liable in any way shape or form for the behavior of a few individuals who have taken it upon themselves to want to conspire to overthrow the government in a violent or forceful way.

The danger to ATS is that if two or more of these people get together and plan something on ATS, ATS itself may, be held liable as well.

reply to post by Subjective Truth

I know you are on the other side but do you see something wrong. Why don't the start to really fix the economy? Why are we still fighting endless wars? And what about the patriot act? Something is very wrong and you guys and gals on the other side need to start seeing it. PLEASE

I do see it. Believe me I see it. I would like for them to stop the wars. I would like for them to fix the economy. (hell, I would like for them to arrest the board members of the Federal Reserve and charge them under RICO.) I would like for them to repeal the Patriot Act. There is something wrong in our country, and it does need to be fixed, but violent Revolution or secession is not the answer. Putting real people into office is the real answer.

But some here don't understand that. Some here, I don't think care. It seems that some here would rather burn the place down than even attempt to fix the problems. And you are right, part of that is the government itself who are refusing to fix the problems.

reply to post by whatukno


I am sensing a bit of fear mongering.

I do not see forum 'revolutionaries' as a threat to the government at all. Most genuine and intelligent revolutionaries are peaceful because they know that overthrowing a system of violence with violence is inherently flawed.

Don't be afraid of the boogyman. Don't listen to pundits. The perceived threat only exists because the government wants to use fear to take away more freedom.

A) It's not an overthrow
B) It's been overthrown already by corporate amerikkka
C) It's a restoration of our representative republic
D) It ain't illegal if the restorers win