I’ll provide an analysis of this comparison by looking at the Illinois Compiled Statutes, since Illinois is the State which I am most familiar. There are basically 3 types of police in Illinois, State Police, sheriffs, and municipal police. Not all police are “sworn”, and those who are sworn‚ are not necessarily properly sworn. In order for an oath to be binding, it must be administered by someone authorized to administer a binding oath, that if violated, carries a punishment. This power to administer oaths is found in the Oaths and Affirmations Act. Aside from a lawfully administered oath, actual “officers” are also required to be bonded, per the Official Bond Act. The only officer sworn is the sheriff.
Are State Police law enforcement or peace officers? Per the Illinois Compiled Statutes:
(20 ILCS 2610/16) (from Ch. 121, par. 307.16)
‚ ‚ ‚ Sec. 16. State policemen shall enforce the provisions of The Illinois Vehicle Code, approved September 29, 1969, as amended, and Article 9 of the “Illinois Highway Code” as amended; and shall patrol the public highways and rural districts to make arrests for violations of the provisions of such Acts. They are conservators of the peace and as such have all powers possessed by policemen in cities, and sheriffs, except that they may exercise such powers anywhere in this State.
‚ Are municipal police law enforcement or peace officers? Per the Illinois Compiled Statutes:
(65 ILCS 5/11-1-2) (from Ch. 24, par. 11-1-2)
‚ ‚ ‚ Sec. 11-1-2. Duties and powers of police officers.
‚ ‚ ‚ (a) Police officers in municipalities shall be conservators of the peace.‚ They shall have the power (i) to arrest or cause to be arrested, with or without process, all persons who break the peace or are found violating any municipal ordinance or any criminal law of the State, (ii) to commit arrested persons for examination, (iii) if necessary, to detain arrested persons in custody over night or Sunday in any safe place or until they can be brought before the proper court, and (iv) to exercise all other powers as conservators of the peace prescribed by the corporate authorities.
And what about sheriffs?
(55 ILCS 5/3-6021) (from Ch. 34, par. 3-6021)
‚ ‚ ‚ Sec. 3-6021. Conservator of the peace. Each sheriff shall be conservator of the peace in his or her county, and shall prevent crime and maintain the safety and order of the citizens of that county; and may arrest offenders on view, and cause them to be brought before the proper court for trial or examination.
(Source: P.A. 89-404, eff. 8-20-95; 90-593, eff. 6-19-98.)
We see the phrase, “conservator of the peace” used for all types of officer, but are they really all “officers”. There are public officers, who are required to take an oath and post a bond, and there are employees who are called officers. The only person actually classified as an “officer”, is the sheriff, who is elected or appointed and then commissioned by the Governor. There is no oath or bond required for municipal police. They are hired by the municaplity to enforce the codes of the municipality. “Conservator or the peace” is a platitude, but not their main function. It is the enforcement of municipal ordinances which only extend to those belonging to the municipality. I do a brief analysis of the nature of municipalities here.
‚ The original article follows:
Not long ago all law enforcement officers were referred to as ‚“Peace Officers,‚ but a transition has slowly set in, in which now all peace officers have become known as ‚“Law Enforcement Officers.‚ Is this just semantics in title, or is there really a difference? That is the subject of this addition to my ‚“Understanding‚ series ‚“by Ron Branson‚ on various items of public service.
To start out, we note that one title contains the word ‚“Peace,‚ and the other ‚“Enforcement.‚ Do these two titles denote the same thing, or is there a difference? Most any grade school graduate can understand them to be two different things. But to the naked eye, one might argue that both wear a uniform, have a badge, and carry a gun, and therefore are one and the same.
The distinction is not one of appearance, but rather one of objective. In all of society life is competition, and everything works from three basic positions: ‚“A‚ versus ‚“B‚ mediated by ‚“C,‚ the latter of which is a neutral position that may be called a mediator, an arbitrator, a referee, an umpire, or a judge. Everyone in the competitive society of life is either a player, or a neutral participant. While the competition of ‚“A‚ and ‚“B‚ could also include the competition of ‚“D,‚ ‚“E,‚ and ‚“F,‚ there can be only one ‚“C‚ who absolutely must have no interest in the outcome between A, B, D, E, and F. Once ‚“C‚ manifests an interest in the competition between A, B, D, E, and F, he automatically forfeits his position as a neutral participant, and becomes a player in the competition.
Every game of sport provides an excellent illustration of the game of life. No judge in an Olympian race can enter himself into the race as a candidate. The moment he does, he forfeits his neutral position as judge because he now has an interest in the outcome.
This illustrates why there can exist no such thing as a ‚“government interest‚ because the moment government obtains an interest in the outcome, it ceases to be government and becomes a contestant in the competitive world in which someone else must necessarily step up to assume the role of ‚“government.‚ ‚ ‚“Government‚ must absolutely be neutral, or it ceases to be government!
That is a profound statement I have just made because the courts in America have recognized ‚“an overriding governmental interest,‚ U.S. v. Lee, 102 S. Ct. 1051 (1982), and Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), both dealing with the mandatory numbering of all Americans to support the Social Security Administration. However, any true-thinking person can quickly see that by the very principles of nature itself, there cannot exist a ‚“governmental interest‚ at all, much less an ‚“overriding‚ one. Once the existence of such a principle is introduced, there can be no end, for it works like the camel’s nose under your tent; you will soon be sleeping with the camel, or worse yet, be crowded out totally from under the tent, for everything will eventually be done to accomplish ‚“an overriding governmental interest!‚
With this as a background, let me explain the distinction between a ‚“Peace Officer,‚ and a ‚“Law Enforcement Officer.‚ The objective of a peace officer is peace, nothing more. He has no interest in the cause of A over B, but seeks only peace, which benefits A, B, D, E, and F. In fact, the whole purpose for all government in society is justice which results in peace. Peace is not possible where there is no justice. Said another way, where there is no justice, there can be no peace; and where there is no peace, you can count on the fact that it is because there is no justice. When a peace officer arrives on the scene, his objective is to separate the disputing factors and quell the tension –whether it be a fight between a husband and wife, or feuding neighbors. He has no inherent interest in arresting anyone upon arrival at the scene. Such pursuit of peace is a rewarding objective. The Bible tells us, ‚“Blessed are the peacemakers.‚ Matt. 5:9.
So now let us discuss a ‚“Law Enforcement Officer.‚ His interest, as his title indicates, is enforcing the law. Now we have already stated that the objective of all government must be the establishment of peace through justice. So the question now turns to whether law enforcement’s only ‚ interest is seeking peace. I state emphatically, ‚“NO!‚ Let me again illustrate with a sports game ‚”œ baseball.
Baseball, as with all sports, has rules. The purpose of those rules, which we might here call ‚“laws,‚ are made to assure that everyone plays on a level playing field and thus keeps the peace. One batter cannot be granted five strikes while another is limited to two. All rules must contribute to the objective of obtaining peace between the competing sides. Obviously, if one side or the other cannot agree as to what the rules are, or to abide by them for the benefit of both sides, there can be no peace, i.e., no game can possibly be played. This natural principle of law is true even where the opponents are fighting in a ring. The objective of all rules/laws must be peace!
Applying this law of nature to all rules and all laws governing society, let us consider the incidents where the rule or the law’s objective is not peace. We accept that the umpire is the decision-maker in baseball; and both sides agree to honor his judgment, whether or not they agree with any particular play. Conceptually, both sides agree that the umpire is trying to keep the peace by being honest and just in calling each and every play, and is not motivated by a personal interest in the outcome, such as a bet on the game.
Now suppose the umpire, pursuant to the authority and permission of the Baseball Commission, imposes a fine against every player in the game for each strike in the amount of $10, (an ‚“infraction,‚) and $100 (a ‚“misdemeanor‚) for each out, and finally $1000 (a ‚“felony‚) for each accumulation of 10 strikes. The ‚“laws/rules‚ provide that the Baseball Commission receives 90% of the proceeds, and the umpire 10%. It is declared ‚“perfectly legal,‚ and such practice ‚“is endorsed by the courts‚ ‚”œsee, here it is, pointing to the published opinion of ‚“United Baseball Players v. Baseball Commission, 666 U.S. 911, (2069).‚ ‚ Now the enforcement of this rule/law is ‚“enforceable;‚ and the Commission is within its right to pursue the players for failure to pay this fee/fine, and it is authorized to send forth law enforcement officers with badges and guns to collect this fee or throw the players in jail.
What has happened is, while this enforcement is ‚“perfectly legal,‚ it has violated the fundamental laws of nature: that all laws must be for the purpose of bringing about peace through justice. Imposing a fine upon the players in a baseball game is neither a pursuit of justice nor peace, but rather the pursuit of the Commission’s own interest –that of collecting fines. And since collecting fines is the Commission’s interest, it then follows that their next step is maximizing those fines, i.e, increasing the numbers and amounts of the fines. Therefore, the ‚“neutral‚ umpire, who has ‚“no interest‚ in the outcome, starts ‚“interpreting‚ more questionable calls in favor of strikes, the Baseball Commissioners, and his own 10% commission. Again I say, show me an umpire that has a ‚“little bit‚ of interest in the outcome of a game, and I will show you a man that‚ under any natural standard is disqualified as an umpire.
A ‚“Law Enforcement Officer‚ is contending for the interest of those who hire him to ‚“enforce‚ their ‚“laws/rules‚ having nothing to do with peace or justice, only with profits for those who have sent him. The objective is greed-oriented.
The term ‚“law enforcement officer‚ connotates the mentality of a fascist police state that has no interest in peace‚”just sheer obedience to the interests of the authority that pays him, i.e., he gets a cut of the profits of tyranny. There is no difference in this scenario than a driver of a get-away car receiving part of the ‚“profits‚ of a bank robbery when splitting up the booty; except the former is a ‚“legal‚ heist, while the latter an illegal one. The former is accomplished with an official uniform and badge, while the latter with a mask and bag.
By the very laws of nature, there cannot exist a ‚“Law Enforcement Officer,‚ for if such were true, then we could all make ourselves ‚“law enforcement officers,‚ for life itself must be a level playing field for all competitive interests. Life is not supposed to be ‚“government.‚ It is supposed to be about society getting along peaceably with each other as much as is possible; and society needs only so much government as is necessary to bring about that objective, ‚“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.‚
— Thomas Paine
So now we know why the foreign power, under color of ‚“government,‚ ‚ has purposely designed the extermination of every reference to ‚“peace officers‚ to metamorphose them into ‚“law enforcement officers.‚ The objective is designed to subjugate the American People to obedience to an all-powerful, ever-expanding law enforcement police state. According to the foreign power, there can never be enough ‚“law enforcement officers‚ ‚”the more, the better! And if there aren’t enough ‚“laws‚ for these ‚“law enforcement officers‚ to enforce, do not worry because the foreign power will surely pass more.
Only by judicial accountability to the People through J.A.I.L. will their plans be thwarted!
Ron Branson is the author of a series of ‚“Understanding‚ articles.
(It is highly recommended that this article be reformatted into a brochure and distributed to all ‚“law enforcement officers‚ in America. And all ‚“L.E.O’s‚ are encouraged to write for Officer Jack McLamb’s newsletter, ‚“Aid & Abet,‚ at Jack@cybrquest.com.)
J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)‚ www.jail4judges.org