1

On Case Studies and Conspiracy Theories:

Why going to university will ensure you never learn anything useful.








Name: Michael Sampat
Course: CCRM302
Instructor: E. Rondinelli
Student #: 989 097 282
2

Introduction
When the state, through institutions like Ryerson University, decides to produce a course
about its own Criminal Courts, it anticipates teaching people how to fulfill roles within that
system. The state seeks to train its own future employees and stakeholders, on how to function
well and efficiently in the courts, rather than how to understand the true nature of these
institutions. But if I wanted to learn about the effectiveness of my local food suppliers quality
control, for my own protection from vested interests, would I be wise to consult that very same
food supplier for his opinion? Or would I perhaps want to consult a third party, for a less biased
perspective? The state directs the educational system to teach about criminal justice, in order to
justify the states own criminal brand of justice. How can this obviously illogical and corrupt
pedagogy continue? How can the state disguise this conflict of interest and misinform its
citizenry so effectively? The same way an essay assignment on the criminal court system can:
by carefully limiting the debate, to within a carefully predetermined framework, one never has to
confront uncomfortable questions about the states own illegitimacy and criminality.
Our assignment is a good example of this dynamic. We are asked, Do you think the
common law power to search incident to arrest should include the right to search a cell phone
without a warrant? But this assumes that we accept the legitimacy of the state and its laws. It
also implies without proof that search incident to arrest is a common law principle, and that
in lieu of that exception to the Charter guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure
(Canada, Government of, 1982), search warrants are a legitimate way to gain lawful access to a
human beings person or property. These sort of unproven, fallacious assumptions are standard
in modern political and economic discourse, and are simply proposed as given truths, thereby
undermining any true investigation. Here we see the term common law is misused, which is a
3

very widespread misnomer, and which leads us to an inaccurate assessment of the situation. The
fact that this is a case study also unnecessarily restricts the discussion and can be seen as leading.
In the end, after discussing our opinion of the proper way to enforce the states illegitimate laws,
will we be any closer to understanding the real nature of the criminal courts? If we want to
understand whats really happening in our court system, we need to step back and see the whole
forest, not just the trees.
R. v. Fearon
The assignment is structured as a case study, so we are presumably expected to center
our argument on an analysis of the case of R. v. Fearon (Canada, Government of, 2013). This
case represents one of the points of tension in the court system, mentioned as areas of focus in
the syllabus (Rondinelli, 2014), as we can see the conflict between police powers of search and
seizure, must be balanced against individual rights. In the minds of government officials,
academics, and lawyers, 10 pages of analysis of this issue, through this case, represents critical
thinking. By writing a well-structured argument about our opinion of this issue, using the case to
illustrate our points, with references to at least 5 peer-reviewed sources, we will have
demonstrated that we can think critically about this subject.
Actually this represents the exact opposite of critical thinking, because instead of
challenging any of the underlying assumptions of the court system and its handling of this issue,
we are simply taking these underlying assumptions as given, and then producing an answer
based on those given assumptions. The case-study model confines the debate to a fairly narrow
area of discussion and legal investigation, and is not even really that relevant to the question (i.e.
what do we think about this issue). Furthermore we are asked whether we think the common
4

law power to search incident to arrest should include the right to search a cell phone without a
warrant?, which incorrectly posits that search incident to arrest is a common law principle and
ignores any notion of the possible illegitimacy of the court system. A student is almost
inevitably led to answer in a way that supports the status quo, especially after referring to
citations that are peer-reviewed and therefore approved by the hierarchy of academia.
If we assume from the outset of our investigation, that the courts, the democratic process,
and the constitution and charter are all legitimate institutions, which exercise legitimate force
over us, then this assignment makes perfect sense. From this ivory tower perspective, points of
tension such as this warrant flap, represent timely issues which must be addressed. It seems
important to micromanage and minutely analyze everything, because this is how the system is
thought to correct itself over time. By analyzing these cases, it is believed we will learn about
and discuss the important issues surrounding them, and understand how to develop laws and
policies that will minimize harm to the public. Presumably we are to believe that the democratic
process over time, through its system of checks and balances, will somehow simply absorb these
ideas. Through various channels, like voting, petitions, osmosis, or such-and-such, the voice of
the people will magically be written large in the legislature. Sounds more like a fairy tale than a
real investigation or plan.
All in all the appeal court produced a good decision according to the letter of the law.
There is no specific protection of privacy under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or in law
(Bailey, 2008), but defendants have managed to carve out some respect for this basic element of
human dignity over the years, most recently through the Charters guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure (Canada, Government of, 1982). It is assumed that police have
a right to search suspects they have arrested for weapons or evidence of the crime. The
5

justification for the search incident to arrest exception is flawed because it assumes that
people, or at least police officers, have a right to lawfully place other people under arrest. The
only justification for that is the sovereign right of the state (Black's Law Dictionary Free
Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.), or the magical social contract (Black's Law Dictionary Free
Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.), neither of which have any basis in verifiable truth. But if we
are willing to acquiesce to illegitimate state force, then of course it is perfectly reasonable that a
police officer should be permitted to search a suspect for anything which may pose a threat or
which is pertinent to their investigation. If we are expected to believe that the police are
protecting us from criminals, then we would certainly be expected to believe that they should
have the right to search those suspected of crimes.
Fearons Charter challenge was a stretch anyway. Since the Charter guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure, need only be respected if not doing so will bring the
administration of justice into disrepute (Canada, Government of), it is basically just window
dressing. Whatever they have deemed to be reasonable is reasonable, according to the implied
worldview that the police, courts, and the state are legitimate institutions, because they say so.
If it is reasonable to allow police to arrest and detain someone who has been suspected of a
robbery, and it is reasonable to search them for weapons and evidence which may link them to
the robbery or lead to other suspects, then it is obviously reasonable to search that persons
unlocked cellphone. Under this logic, it is reasonable to crack a password protected phone, or
even penalize a suspect who refuses to divulge their password. And as we slide down this
slippery slope, legislators are busy dreaming up new ways to talk people out of more of their
God given rights, such as anti-terrorism legislation or increased government surveillance and
regulation.
6


Legalese
Our assignment question misuses the term common law in describing search incident to
arrest. It is a common misnomer to describe anything which proceeds down from the ancient
English tradition of stare decisis as being from the common law; perhaps the state used this
storied name to appeal to the masses. The origin of common law is often ascribed to the Norman
conquest of England (Keeton, 1966), sometimes Rome, and there are some who even say it has
an Islamic origin (Makdisi, 1999), but no one really knows where it comes from. Whats
important to remember though, is that the common law can be clearly distinguished from law
created by statute, or by the state (Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd
Ed.). Common law emerged from old practices and customs that the ancient people used to
manage exchange and settle disputes peacefully. Without any state to make up laws, a legal
framework emerges naturally from human social interaction through peaceful relations, and in
fact the state actually creates more economic costs than it reduces (Friedman, 2000) (Rothbard,
2008(1974)).
Since the state imposes its power to arrest, and imposes its own courts to decide on
warrants and the justification of searches, search incident to arrest is simply another power that
they have appointed themselves, and does not meet the definition of common law. Some
commentators have ascribed it to the medieval practice, originating in the Statute of Winchester
1285, known as the hue and cry, which allowed passersby to provide assistance to a crime
victim and to arrest a suspect (Vile, 2013). This corroborates my contention that search incident
to arrest is not a common law practice at all, but based on legislated statute. By using the term
7

common law to describe search incident to arrest, it is given a certain cach that it does not
warrant. Search incident to arrest and the very power to arrest and enforce statutes, are state-
imposed, tyrannical abuses of power, which are couched in legalistic terms to disguise the states
corrupt savagery.
Framing
The state is expert at containing the discussion. In many ways, this has always been the
main source of preoccupation for the state. But in modern times, with the advent of instant and
mass communication, the political environment has completely changed from bygone eras.
Especially with the expansion of the internet, the masses are now much more informed and
educated than at any previous time in known human history. This makes them much more
difficult to control or manipulate.
As former National Security Adviser to America, and a founder of the globalist Trilateral
Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski said in November 2008, in earlier times, it was easier to
control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people, than physically to kill
a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million
people. It is easier to kill, than to control (Brzezinski, 2008). How do these chilling
comments from a well-connected statesman relate to an essay about the power of states to search
cell-phones incident to arrest? Well when the elites understand that they are going to have a
harder time controlling a million people than killing a million people, they have to spend a lot
more time trying to control those people (public education, popular culture, news media,etc),
until they get the chance to kill them.
8

We have entered the era of the corporate dictatorship, which had been predicted by
commentators for decades before September 11, 2001 (Dawes, 2010) (Quigley, 1975) (Miller,
1981), and this reality has only become more stark during the war on terror. Our entire corporate
society is controlled by a tiny elite, diplomats like Brzezinski, well-connected bankers like
David Rockefeller, or ancient Royal and aristocratic bloodlines like the Windsors (who were
renamed from the German Saxe-Cobourg-Gothe to appease the people of England, when they
were fighting the Germans during World War I). The scope of these groups control extends
across the Anglo-American empire and perhaps soon globally (Makow, 2008) (Springmeier,
2005).
Super-rich elites like Rockefeller have always been big supporters of public education
(Rockefeller Foundation, 2014). They were a big part of the original push to make public
education mandatory, but all that philanthropy is more about actively promoting their own
political interests than it is about being altruistic (Gatto, 2010). Does anybody really think the
super-rich of the world want us to become properly educated so we can take their wealth? But as
the general access to knowledge widens, people will have a harder time swallowing a lot of the
ridiculous tripe that gets passed off as education under the state system of corporate mind-
control, so they have increasingly centralized the control of knowledge and carefully corralled
the discussion to within the parameters they feel comfortable with.
One of the most important and effective ways to do this is to marginalize and ostracize
other competing perspectives. In academia this is done by using the peer-review system, the in
camera protocol for post-graduate admissions and tenure allocation, and other organizational
pressures, which keep radical ideas out of the discourse. This effect has been documented in a
wide variety of fields, including areas we consider to be sacred cows of academia, such as the
9

natural sciences (Frankowski, 2008) (Greenberg, 2007) and medicine (Ioannidis, 2005). In the
case of medical science, Ioannidis has found that they are actually producing more false findings
than true ones (Ioannidis, 2005).
In modern academia, the only way anything can even be considered knowledge is if it
has been peer-reviewed. Articles are only published if they are peer-reviewed, and when
students or professors make arguments in papers, they must refer to peer-reviewed pieces. The
fact that many of these peer-reviewed papers and intellectuals directly contradict each other is
not seen as a sign of someone being wrong, but of the wonderful variety of truth. With the turn
to post-modernism, we have literally reached the point where the truth is not even considered an
achievable goal since everyone finds their own truth. But when everyone finds their own truth,
whoever has the money gets to decide what is true.
Everyone who is professionally trained in our society in any field, from architecture, to
medicine, to education, to the law, is trained and certified under this knowledge oligarchy. This
means that ideas which threaten the status quo can be easily and effectively boxed out of the
discourse. In these institutions students are expected to memorize a large body of factual
information which is considered knowledge in various fields, then regurgitate this information
on exams and in essays. Everything students learn has been approved by the peer-review
system, and if it has not, then students do not learn it. Although a veneer of critical thinking is
applied, it is usually in the area of controlled opposition, rather than being open to free thought.
Questions are structured in such a way that answers will usually fall within the parameters of the
conventional wisdom.
10

This assignment is a good example of what is typical in this model, as we are expected to
analyze a case, which immediately narrows the scope of the discussion. Then we must answer
whether we think search incident to arrest should include cell-phones, which forces us to accept
the legitimacy of search incident to arrest and of the state itself. The question inevitably leads
the nave student to an answer that is acceptable to the legalistic conventional wisdom of the
Canadian criminal justice system, which is obvious since the whole course taught nothing but the
conventional wisdom. I do not blame instructors because they have been entirely trained and
employed within this system, so they have probably rarely been exposed to many alternative
views about anything. Although universities are supposed to be beacons of free thought, the
reality is quite the opposite.
Criminology & Conspiracies
The areas of criminological and legal studies are in many ways the epitome of this assault
on truth. The state actually studies itself, but never considers the conflict of interest, or the
circular logic, inherent in such an investigation. Numerous academics, notably Rothbard
(Kyriazi, 2004) and Hoppe (Hoppe, 1998), have explained that the state exists for nothing more
than robbery, yet state crimes are largely ignored by the criminologists. Somehow they find
time to peer at statistics about the crimes the criminal state has defined for them through its
illegitimate laws, but why do they not investigate whether the state itself is a criminal enterprise?
Could it be, because the state pays their bills? For the most part criminology consists of studying
statistics the state produces about its own function of law enforcement (Siegel & McCormick,
2012). Even statistics which are produced from some other data-source, are still generally
describing human interaction, and are therefore better categorized as historical data than
scientific data, since no repeatable experiment can be performed (Popper, 1945) (von Mises,
11

1949). Yet the propositions put forward by these pseudoscientists are generally espoused as fact
and these inform policy, which leads to very real consequences for people.
Conspiracy theories should be gold to a criminologist. I mean if any of them are true, it
would be like finding the ultimate crime! Perhaps even detecting the source of crime? Anyone
who managed to find convincing evidence of a conspiracy theory like the Illuminati, the JFK
assassination, or the 9/11 inside job, should basically become world-famous and the most ground
breaking criminologist of all time! Evidence supporting a conspiracy at the Sandy Hook
Elementary shooting, the Boston Bombing, or the Aurora Colorado shooting should also be an
amazing boon to any criminologist, as it would open an entirely new avenue of research and
entirely new explanations for numerous phenomena. But of course this area is completely
ignored by or off-limits to practicing criminologists, and we should not have to think too hard to
understand why that is when universities are largely funded by the state (StatsCan, 2011) . Any
criminologist, or any academic for that matter, who seriously tries to tackle these subjects, will
be summarily crushed. Almost no peer-reviewed sources have undertaken any serious
examination of September 11 or any of the other suspicious events.
We have come to the point where political radicalism is often equated with mental
illness, because this is a very effective tool for silencing dissent. Jennifer Pytyck wrote a piece
about how people in the Sovereign Citizen movement display all the known signs of psychosis,
because of their bizarre and paranoid beliefs, but that we should not make the mistake of
classifying them that way legally (Pytyck, 2013). So a social movement that argues for peaceful
resistance from the state, and which considers state-based information sources suspect, is
considered paranoid and to exhibit psychosis, so the Journal of Forensic Mental Health felt the
need to examine this issue, as to hopefully reduce the number of misdiagnoses. The 1997 thriller
12

Conspiracy Theory, with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts, is another example of a mainstream
portrayal of conspiracy theorists as mentally unhinged, even though many of the ideas put
forward in the movie have arguably come to pass in real life (Donner, 1997). Orwell had it right
when he wrote, In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Ultimately we must all decide for ourselves what we believe. People come to schools
and universities to learn about the world, but we must always take what we learn with a grain of
salt. If we simply accept whatever we are told in lectures and peer-reviewed journals, then
regurgitate this information on exams, does this prove we learned anything useful? It only
proves that we know what they want us to know.









13

Bibliography
Bailey, J. (2008). Framed by Section 8: Constitutional Protection of Privacy in Canada. Canadian Journal
of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 279-306.
Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. (n.d.). What is "Common Law"? Retrieved 04
03, 2014, from The Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/common-law/
Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. (n.d.). What is "Social Contract". Retrieved
04 03, 2014, from The Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/social-contract/
Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. (n.d.). What is "Soverign Right"? Retrieved
04 03, 2014, from The Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/sovereign-right/
Brzezinski, Z. (2008). Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US Presidency. The Whitehead Lecture
(p. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4usbR_kKCDs). London: Chatham House.
Canada, Government of. (n.d.). The Constitution Act - Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c
11, s 24(2). Retrieved 04 03, 2014, from CanLII: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-
b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-
11.html#sec24subsec2_smooth
Canada, Government of. (1982, Apr 17). CanLII, The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act
1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Retrieved 2014, from CanLII:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-
11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html
Canada, Government of. (2013, Feb 20). CanLII, R. v. Fearon, 2013 ONCA 106 (CanLII). Retrieved 2014,
from CanLII: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca106/2013onca106.html
Dawes, M. (2010). Corproate Dictatorship. et Cetera (pp. 294-299). ProQuest Research Library.
Donner, R. (Director). (1997). Conspiracy Theory [Motion Picture].
Frankowski, N. (Director). (2008). Expelled: No INtelligence Allowed [Motion Picture].
Friedman, D. D. (2000). Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why it Matters. Princeton
University Press.
Gatto, J. T. (2010). The General Education Board and Friends. Retrieved 04 03, 2014, from Teh Odysseus
Group - John Taylor Gatto: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/12o.htm
Greenberg, D. (2007). Science for Sale.
Hoppe, H. H. (1998). The Western State as Paradigm. Society, 21.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine.
14

Keeton, G. W. (1966). The NOrman Conquest and the Common Law. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Kyriazi, H. (2004). Reckoning with Rothbard. American Journal of Ecnomics, 452.
Makdisi, J. A. (1999). The Islamic Origin of the Common Law. North Carolina Law Review, 1635.
Makow, H. (2008). Illuminati: The Cult that Hijacked the World. Toronto: Silas Green.
Miller, A. (1981). Democratic Dictatorship: The Emergent Constitution of Control. Greenwood, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Popper, K. (1945). The Poverty of Historicism III. Economica, 68-89.
Pytyck, j. (2013). The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial. International Journal Of
Forensic Mental Health, 149-153.
Quigley, C. (1975). Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. Angriff Press.
Rockefeller Foundation. (2014). The Rockefeller Foundation. Retrieved 04 03, 2014, from The Rockefeller
Foundation: http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/
Rondinelli, E. (2014, Winter). CCRM 308 Syllabus Winter 2014. Criminal Courts in Canada. Toronto,
Canada: Ryerson University.
Rothbard, M. (2008(1974)). Anatomy of the State: What the State is Not. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Siegel, L. J., & McCormick, C. (2012). Criminology in Canada: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. Toronto:
Nelson Education.
Springmeier, F. (2005). Bloodlines of the Illuminati. Pentracks Publications/TGS Printing Distributing.
StatsCan. (2011). Spending on Post-Secondary Education. Retrieved from www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-
599-x/81-599-x2011007-eng.pdf
Vile, J. R. (2013). People v. Chiagles (NY 1923). Encyclopedia of the Fourth Amendment. Sage Knowledge.
von Mises, L. (1949). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn: Bettina Bien Greaves.