Tag Archives: due process

Equal Time at the Atlantic

04 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Yesterday, Mr. Witte babbled fear to injustice. Today, Emily Yoffe speaks truth to hysteria. Powerful, thoughtful stuff:

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Due process, who’dathunkit?

Agreeing With John Bolton

11 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Yesterday it was The Goldman. Today this. Is what it is.

The United States threatened Monday to arrest and sanction judges and other officials of the International Criminal Court if it moves to charge any American who served in Afghanistan with war crimes.

White House National Security Advisor John Bolton called the Hague-based rights body “unaccountable” and “outright dangerous” to the United States, Israel and other allies, and said any probe of US service members would be “an utterly unfounded, unjustifiable investigation.”

“If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly,” Bolton said.

He said the US was prepared to slap financial sanctions and criminal charges on officials of the court if they proceed against any Americans.

Clinton’s unratified signature on the Rome deal was a mistake. The ICC, “child of Nuremberg”, allows for no due process. And it decides “law” on what basis? How the winds shift? No thanks.

However, I doubt any deterrent or reprising criminal charges will be necessary. The court can likely be ignored with relative safety. If that fails, we have the Marines.

Constitutional Consideration: Deportation and Immirgation Exhortation

28 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Andrew Napolitano has some choice wisdom for President Trump, who recently proposed deporting illegal invaders without due process:

The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial.

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. “Person,” in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported.

He’s right, legally and technically. If we’re still pretending the Constitution is anything but a relic in a museum, then it might be well to follow it. The DP clause is thus still valid. As are the following portions and proposed usages:

The current law is a sad mess but, generally speaking, if an invader does not make an asylum claim or plea to some other removal-delaying mechanism, then the due process can be very short and fast – a quick hearing would suffice.

The law could be (should be) changed to allow for rapid removal and to do away with incentives and protections, among other restrictions. This would require action from a Congress which repeatedly demonstrates its uselessness, ineptitude, and stupidity. Asking A LOT. It would also require surviving court challenges, sure to be filed nationwide as a result of any program or legal change. If (a huge if) Trump could somehow motivate his idiotic party to action, then both issues could be resolved together, Constitutionally.

There’s more in the old parchment than due process. Congress has the power and the authority to establish, ordain, and regulate the jurisdiction of the Courts. “Congress shall have the power … To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” US Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, No. 9. ” The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” US Const. Art. III, Sec. 1.

The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over a narrow band of matters specified in Art. III. All others and all those of the inferior courts may be limited by Congress (should they see fit).

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State; —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

US Const. Art. III, Sec. 2, 2-3 (double emphasis added).

Immigration and naturalization, being Article I subjects, are not included in the specific exemptions. Thus, they are potential exemptions (as are [potentially] most other laws). So, a simple add-on to the end of any modifying legislation could strip the courts of the ability to review cases executed under the new law: “No court, including the Supreme Court, shall have any jurisdiction to review any matter arising under this Law.”

As an added deterrent, Congress could make extrajudicial review an impeachable offense.

One, wishing to challenge the new law, could do it the right way: seeking redress through Congress. All this assumes much.

And, while we’re assuming, let’s look deeper at the issue of invasion as it concerns the States affected by the influx of foreigners. Equating unmitigated and unrestricted immigrant invasion to a form of warfare, which is certainly is, the influx looks a lot like an actual invasion. The Constitution also provides a mechanism for dealing with this, for the several States.

Assuming Congress and the President are not doing enough to combat the issue (Trump is trying, Congress … do we even have a Congress anymore?), then the States can DECLARE WAR on the invaders, their exporting nations, or countries allowing them to pass through. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” US Const. Art. I, Sec. 10, No. 3.

If expecting action from Congress assumes much, then expecting action from Austin or Sacramento assumes more.

But, if it’s still real, then the Constitution is still there – all of it.

UPDATE: Another thought on “persons” and due process:

What or who is a “person?”

Websters defines “person” as a “human individual;” or, archaically, as “the body of a human being.”

Black’s, for legal purposes, defines “person” as “A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.”

“Human being” is the common denominator. You probably already knew all of this without dictionary references; you can probably guess where I’m going with it. Play along. A “human being” or just “human” is, scientifically, a certain kind of “bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens).” This could be further broken down to the level of the exact chemical composition, genetic markers, and associated vitality necessary to satisfy any biologist as to the specific nature of the subject creature. Having satisfied the purely scientific, the medical, there is no need to go even further with the addition of a soul.

Again, you probably knew “person” meant “homo sapien,” all types and forms. I suspect you’re a human person. Napolitano and Trump are human persons. Those crossing the borders, legally or illegally, are human persons. All humans are persons. All, to include the smallest, the unborn, whose only rights consist of the right to life and chance for development into the above, larger forms and whose only charged duties consist of the growing and living.

First: Redefining a baby as a “lump of tissue,” a “thing,” per Black’s, is a dangerous proposition. Technically it’s true. Somewhere between the person and the soul, “tissue” is firmly established to exist. And, everything physical is a “thing.” So, yes, that “thing” in the woman’s womb is a “lump of tissue.” So is the woman. So is the doctor with the vacuum.

If we’re to believe in equality or rights, then why would a “right to choose” be limited only to a certain class of (pregnant) women? That’s sexist. Does a man have the right to chop a doctor into 1,000 pieces and vacuum them into a bucket? Just tissue, things, mind you. Reality, legal and moral, tells us, “no.”

Now: Reality, legal and moral, also tells us that, if aliens at the border are persons, deserving of due process to preserve a liberty interest concerning geographic location, and if all persons have such process rights of liberty and life, then so to do unborn children.

Grant children due process! Justice demands it. As does the Fifth Amendment.

My old friend Bobby Franklin used to introduce legislation to affect just these ends. His law would have required that any legal abortion proceed only after the issuance of a death warrant, following a hearing before a judge. Someone would need conclusively demonstrate, as in a capital offense, why the baby deserved to die. Due process for the child at issue. His idea was mocked by the same sorts who, now, insist on due process for illegals and who, now, scream and shout about the inhumanity of separating children.

Just another thought.

The Extraordinary Rendition of America

14 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, in a headline for FP, I celebrated the departure of Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State and the man who ushered in the brave new age of the Boy Scouts of America. But it’s really a mixed bag.

Tillerson never belonged anywhere near government power. His firing is a good thing. A liberal friend rightly pointed out that Trump has the highest and fastest rate of administrative turnover in history. It’s does look like disarray. Oddly, by his own list, leaving aside some major points (Obamacare, the wall, locking HER up, etc.), Trump is actually accomplishing his agenda. If it works…

However, with the cabinet positions, aides, and so forth, the turnover is a mixed bag. We seem to lose one deep state, globalist idiot only to have another step right in to take his place. Seems like it spreads.

The newly nominated Sec. State, replacing T-Rex, in the former Director of the CIA. Do we really want the head of secret police/paramilitary force representing us to the world? Might that not send a mixed message?

The new, nominated Director of the CIA is the former Deputy Director, Gina Haspel. If you’ve never heard of her, that’s probably because you watch America’s mainstream, lamestream, report no real facts media. Stop that. Get all your news and entertainment here!

Anyway, Gina is a career employee of the company, a former honcho for NCS, perhaps the most dangerous and unaccountable part of the deep state. The woman is “quite literally a war criminal.”

She ran the notorious CIA “black site” in Thailand. You’ve probably not heard much about that. It was (is) only one of the many places where the USA, beacon of virtue, engages in illegal torture of enemy combatants (defined as whomever the President says is…). This has been standard operating procedure under the current and past two administrations (Duuuuuuh-wa, no hope and no change, MAGA).

This practice and those like would, if conducted by any other government, constitute actionable offenses against humanity. There has been limited legal action already. The international community has little sway over the US with its thousands of operable nukes. And there is NO justice left in America’s courts. So, what sent Nazis to the gallows (on trumped-up, ex post facto charges and no due process at all), the US gets a pass on. Exceptionalism or something.

And, even honest CIA killers admit this hideous treatment of prisoners doesn’t work. Abu Zubaydah, in US “custody” for something like 15 years, with no rights, and no hope, was horribly battered and abused only to have it discovered he knew nothing and was not a threat. Still at Club GitMo though.

“Thems tarr-ists,” the unwashed roar, “who cares?” What part of “whomever the President says” don’t they get. It can be and has been US citizens.

I’ve been asking of late why Trump doesn’t apply such Draconian “justice” to the globalists, deep staters, and treasoners. Why not release the tortured, no threat, know-nothings, and make room for bankers, Congress Critters, judges, and people like Gina? You know, real threats who’ve actually done harm.

Instead Trump does the opposite, continually appointing rather than prosecuting.

And, back to this sh!t not working: the real terror threats are here, not out there in the sandbox or some other exotic locale. ISIS-inspired Corey Johnson comes to mind, if you look through the alternative media:

A 17-year-old named Corey Johnson claimed his Muslim faith commanded him to fatally stab a 13-year-old boy during a sleepover and severely injured another 13-year-old along with his mother who was stabbed more than a dozen times.

Palm Beach Florida authorities said the attacker confessed to the killing, attempted killings, and the motive of Islamic Jihad. After killing one teen and stabbing two more people Johnson barricaded himself in a room when police arrived. He was taken into custody at about 8 a.m. by the city’s SWAT team.

Palm Beach isn’t located in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, nor North Korea. And Johnson looks like a shaggy, disgruntled American everyteen. We don’t have to look that far for our boogeymen.

050214_r13879_rd.jpg

Justice in Amerika. New Yorker.

Platonically speaking, we’re passing rapidly from Democracy to Tyranny. Could we at least get a decent tyrant out of it, someone “cool?”

Shocking Justice in Texas

09 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Some wonder why people have a hard time trusting the “justice” system. Here’s part of it: a Texas Judge repeatedly zaps a defendant with shock device for no good reason:

State District Judge George Gallagher of Tarrant County told a bailiff on three occasions to punish an uncooperative defendant with electric shocks, and now the sex offender’s conviction has been overturned and a new trial ordered.

Stun belts can be strapped around the legs of some defendants and used to deliver thousands of volts of electric shock in the instance a defendant turns violent or attempts to escape the courtroom. However, in the case of Terry Lee Morris, who was convicted in 2014 of charges of soliciting sexual performance from a 15-year-old girl, an appeals court found that Gallagher used electric shocks as punishment after Morris failed to answer the judge’s questions properly.

…

“While the trial court’s frustration with an obstreperous defendant is understandable, the judge’s disproportionate response is not. We do not believe that trial judges can use stun belts to enforce decorum,” Justice Yvonne T. Rodriguez said of Gallagher’s actions in the court’s opinion.

“A stun belt is a device meant to ensure physical safety; it is not an operant conditioning collar meant to punish a defendant until he obeys a judge’s whim. This Court cannot sit idly by and say nothing when a judge turns a court of law into a Skinner Box, electrocuting a defendant until he provides the judge with behavior he likes,” Rodriguez wrote.

I know some will read this (or have it read to them) and say, “Who cares? He’s a child mo-lester!” That may be true. It may be proven at a subsequent, lawful retrial. The problems here are several. And they illustrate that maybe, just maybe, in some cases the government lacks the moral authority to try child mo-lesters or anyone else.

First, there’s that pesky right to remain absolutely silent. Even in court. Even in defiance of the judge. One does not have to enter a plea. In the absence of a verbal or written plea the universal protocol is for a judge to enter the defendant as “not guilty” and set a jury trial. Why Judge Sparky missed that I can’t explain.

Second, if you do speak to the court, or in order to another party while in court, then they’re supposed to let you speak. They can gently admonish you to stay on subject but a shock device is a but much.

Third … cruel and unusual anyone? And for nothing. Normally, as the article hinted at, a disruptive party will simply be removed from the court room. This man said he was mentally ill and may actually be (even without the electric torture). Judges with more sense sometimes suspend trials and cases pending mental evaluations. Shrinks don’t use shock treatment (much) anymore.

Here, in this case and as the article makes clear, this defendant, annoying or not, was not combative. Protocol, which has to be nationwide – especially in large states like Texas, is to use the shock devices only to protect staff from an actually violent and dangerous suspect.

I think what this fellow was wearing was a shock “ankle bracelet.” Belts usually go around the waist. And they have waist worn shock belts. I’ve seen one used in court. In civilized jurisdictions they usually are required to test demonstrate how effective the belt is – and they are effective. At the judge’s order, the sheriff, the bailiff, or whoever is in charge of security, will test shock an officer, in court and in front of the defendant, the judge, and the public.

Only once did I see this happen, in a murder case with a potentially, allegedly well-trained and dangerous defendant. Maybe he wasn’t that dangerous, volatile to begin with, or maybe it was seeing a 300-pound deputy knocked off his feet by the 50,000 volts, but he never once acted out during his prolonged trial.

As an aside, that guy didn’t make it all the way through the trial. Sensing his actual guilt or maybe the hopelessness of his case, he self-executed one night with a bed sheet. Justice? Maybe. We’ll never know.

But we do know there was little to no justice in Fort Worth.

There is now, and has been for a while, a massive assault on due process, equal protection, liberty, and the rule of law (not of crazed, zappy men) in America. Every little violation runs together with the others to form the monumental mess we now have at hand. It’s changed Anglo-American jurisprudence, governance, and culture for the worse.

The changes may make for expedience in some events. I’m half serious about handling certain criminal or martial acts with E.O. status and prosecution. What, years ago would have been considered insane tyranny, has been rubber stamped by all associated parties. Expedient? Yes, sometimes, sure. Dangerous? You damn-well better believe it.

So, in the real interest of justice (if we still value the word and concept), I bring you warning stories like this.

Now! All is not quite so dark and depressing. Somewhere near the end of the article the Star-Telegram featured a video. Watch it. Human concern and kindness from the most unseemly source. Maybe there is a little hope. Let’s hope so.

stun-belt-1280x720

These things work, appropriate or not. The Blaze.

Justice Gives a Gift for the Winter Solstice

21 Thursday Dec 2017

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Happy winter, 2017, a season which began an hour or so ago. This one begins on a nominally merry note. Several notes, in fact, as the little GOP elves deliver happy tax cuts for the peeps.

Also, yesterday, just like Wodan Santa bringing gifts to the kiddies, Lady Justice delivered to Americans a blow for freedom and against government tyranny. A federal judge declared a mistrial in the Cliven Bundy criminal case, the result of massive government obstruction. My brief recount from Freedom Prepper:

Cliven Bundy, his sons, and friends, are American heroes. Like our great forefathers they actually stood up to the tyrannical power of the central government. You likely know their story of defiance against the Bureau of Land Management.

Now, know the good news. The federal case against them continues to disintegrate. Read the amazing legal feel-good story, here, from the Washington Post and Leah Sottile.

If you still believe in the old Constitution and expect the government to abide by it, then you must notice that nowhere in that document does the government in DC have any authority to own and “manage” “public” lands. None. No authority.

Cliven and Co. took this issue and legal point straight to the BLM. The encounter turned sour as so many interactions with the police state do. Arrests were made and, then, the prosecutorial misconduct began.

“LAS VEGAS — A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the criminal conspiracy case against rancher Cliven Bundy and three other defendants, saying government lawyers suppressed key evidence that would have been favorable to the defendants’ case related to a 2014 standoff with federal agents.

U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro determined that the prosecution suppressed evidence from FBI surveillance cameras recording the Bundy family home and the presence of Bureau of Land Management snipers around the property in the days leading up to the standoff there. Additionally, the prosecution did not provide FBI logs, maps, reports and threat assessments that said the Bundy family was not dangerous.

Navarro pointed to assessments conducted by the FBI, the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center and the BLM that said “the Bundy family is not violent” and that they “would probably get in your face, but not get into a shootout.”

The court “regrettably believes a mistrial is the only suitable option,” Navarro told the packed Nevada courtroom. “A fair trial at this point is impossible.”
–Sottile

This is huge. First, there is public acknowledgement that the government does, in fact, do wrong and itself break the law. Second, a federal judge has called them on it. This usually is well hidden.

A hearing is scheduled for January 8, 2018 to assess the damage caused and to determine if the case should even proceed. It is possible that the judge may find the feds have so compromised justice that she has to dismiss the charges. That would be true and complete justice – not just for Bundy, but for all Americans.

This story is developing. But it is, right now, a victory for anyone interested in freedom. It’s a refutation to the mindlessness of both “government is god” liberals and of “law ‘n order” conservatives. Yes, the police routinely arrest innocent people. Then they commit perjury, hide evidence, mess with rules, prevent discovery, obstruct justice, destroy due process, and trample civil liberties. Usually, they get away with it, sometimes even with commendation. But not this time.

This is huge.

nimbus-image-1513875385558.png

Conservative Treehouse.

Finding Freedom: Two Causes, One Fight

14 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Still less than a week out from the general election I’m seeing a lot of ideological banter on social media. There’s a lot of comparing and contrasting. Much is in the form of memes though some is serious. For example, a left-leaning friend (a real, old friend) posted the following on Facebook:

“I wish Republicans had the same unwavering, unconditional support for the First Amendment that they do for the Second.”

I “liked” the post. I like the sentiment. I will not get into partisan politics as both sides and parties have a lot of catching up to do with liberty on those two and many other fronts. My wish is that everyone would get behind all of the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, 100% and all the time. That would be half of making the Constitution worthwhile (again?). (The other half would be narrowly restricting the government to just those parameters delineated). Already I lose people, I know.

My buddy isn’t likely to get his wish anytime soon. I will likely never see mine come to fruition. I can handle it, being that I am after all a rebel to all ideology. But there is always hope. I am a staunch supporter of the First and Second Amendments (and all else recognizing rights of the free people). I don’t have a story to go with the proposition of the First and the Second together though. I do, however, have one directly related to the Second Amendment and application of Due Process and Equal Protection.

Journey back with me now …

The year was 2008. It was May, I think. Let’s say May of 2008. Yes. The Atlanta Chapter of the Federalist Society announced a lunch and learn seminar centered on the landmark 2A case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)(the Supreme Court held the 2A protected individual rights to bear arms).

The case was, then, before the High Court, having just come out of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, there, was known as Heller v. D.C. Litigants “hop the ‘V'” when they change courts to keep things interesting. The D.C. Circuit came to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court did later though, in my opinion, better, stronger, and less “qualified”. Judge Lawrence Silberman wrote the majority opinion.

Where was I? The Fed-Soc! This was the final Society function I attended (at least so far). And I only went because of the subject matter and the keynote speaker. Said speaker was none other than Judge Silberman.

I always hated legal seminars, even the ones about guns. I think Silberman said many nice and smart things. He’s a nice and smart man. The problem is that in those settings a haze descends over me. It’s all I can do to eat the lunch (not cheap in that case).

After the lunch there was a mix and mingle session. I remember looking out the windows. We were in the conference/gala room of some major law firm, on about the 50th floor of a mid-town high-rise. The view that day for terrific.

At some point I found myself in a small group with Silberman, a U.S. Attorney, some political hacks and a few bigwig attorneys. I thanked and praised the Judge for his work. There was a lot of nodding, smiles and those quips that only come from anti-government type conservatives who happen to make their living from the government. Then, as always happens, the Perrin came out. I said something like:

“I love my guns and I don’t support any gun controls at all, reasonable or not. But, whatcha gonna do? It’s the District of Corruption.”

Only Silberman (now a little nervous) broke the gawking silence, “Did you just say the District of Corruption?” I answered, “Yes. I did.”

I didn’t like even Antonin Scalia’s qualifications on the Second Amendment. And I wasn’t going to give any of my own about my statement. I excused myself so they could talk about me. I had other business downtown anyway.

About a mile south and a world away I had an appointment with the Southern Center For Human Rights. Whereas the Fed-Soc is arch-conservative and all that, the Southern Center is arch-liberal and all that. The scenery changes, I don’t. I was on a mission that day to fight for multiple rights. The venues were unimportant.

My business with the Center was this: various backwards Georgia counties allow(ed) for private probation companies to operate cases in State Courts. A very few did a good and reasonable job. The majority were as corrupt as the District. What one would expect from Georgia.

I had a lot of experience with two of those probation systems – one good, one bad. And I knew that the Center was investigating the bad one under cover. We had spoken on the phone but I wanted an in person meeting. It had nothing to do with the attractiveness of the young woman leading the investigation though that certainly did not hurt. (And I can’t remember her name…).

Our concerns were mutual. In addition to posing several Constitutional questions on the operation of government, these systems discriminated horribly against poor people. If you or I got a speeding ticket (well, if you did), you just paid the fine and went on your merry way. Poor folks facing the same predicament also faced a world of hurt. You might have paid $200 and moved on. They ended up paying $1,000+ over the course of one or more years. The abuses were too numerous to list. It was bad, bad enough to make me ride MARTA to fight it.

We talked for a good hour. No crazy Perrinisms, I just told her everything I knew and offered my help. She, they had a vague plan. Over the next few years, with a ton of help from private defense attorneys and many lawsuits and some legislation, the plan worked out. Kind of. Georgia still has a backwards system, greatly resembling the previous one, but it is now conducted under official guise. Progress, I suppose.

A little liberal progress. On the conservative front it was much the same. The Supreme Court gave us Heller and MacDonald and other courts gave yet more 2A friendliness. There’s still much to be done on all fronts. And I gave you this story, heartening testimony that one may support opposite ends of the freedom spectrum even in the same day in May in Hotlanta.

Now, I give you the following zany side stories! The price you pay for reading this far.

I spent the night (before or after I cannot remember – maybe both) at a hotel in Buckhead. Not wanting to drive downtown I took a MARTA train. I bought my token with a $20. The stupid machine spit out my token and 17 or 18 Sacagawea Dollars as change. Thus, as I eased around traffic, I clanged about with 4 pounds of scrap-metal in my pockets.

Upon leaving the Southern Center I encountered a beggar. Downtown Atlanta almost has as many beggars as D.C. has rats. I had walked past more than a few that day alone. This lady was different. She was well dressed. She seemed sweet and professional. And she seemed like she really needed a helping hand. She only asked me if I could help her with anything. No song and dance. No ridiculous story. No fake Rolex. I said, “Darling, you’re in luck!”

She was more than gracious to receive Sacagawea and the whole tribe. I was happy being able to walk upright again.

One good deed deserved another so I treated myself to a cigar. (You had to know cigars were coming). It was at the nice shop on Sidney Marcus that I don’t think is in business anymore. It was just down the street from my hotel.

large-winston_churchill_lmtd_ed_2016_box

Corona Cigars. I’m a Corona Club VIP! How ’bout you?

At the time I was reviewing Cigars for the now-defunct Vegas Room. As an assignment I bought a Davidoff Winston Churchill. Later that evening I removed with my smoke and a beer to the hotel pool area. Immediately upon lighting up my chair broke. This, aggravating my Sacagawea injury, killed the experience and ended my review attempt. I took my beer back to the room with a curse and a limp.

The moral to all of this is: reach across the aisle sometime and help the “other side”. Freedom is freedom is freedom. Also, if you can help a poor person, do so – it might benefit you immediately. And, finally, when you go to do your review smoking, pick a good chair…

The Collins Amendment: I Don’t Buy The Gun-Fly Lie

30 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has proposed the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016, popularly known as the Collins Amendment. Who could possibly be against such a thing? I am, for one. Her proposal is similar to Diane Feinstein’s S.551 and several other meaningless measures floating around the septic tank of Congress. Her’s is the one in the news today having passed a procedural vote 52-46. Here’s the majority of the Amendment (click the picture for the whole thing):

nimbus-image-1467305366319.png

Collins Amendment. Senate.gov.

The vote had to be of the unrecorded, oral variety as I can’t find reference to it. Congress frequently avoids such disclosure. Why would anyone want to readily know how his Senator voted on something anyway? There are reasons a rational man would oppose such a “common sense” law. Anyway, support for this version of gun control is being hailed as some sort of crack in the GOP/NRA wall against a safer America.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a co-sponsor of the Act so we can assume he was among the 52. His explanation of its provisions highlight the problems with the Amendment and various other government projects. Per the Times story:

Republicans find it much easier to explain enacting gun restrictions to constituents devoted to the Second Amendment if they can frame their position as an act against terrorism.

“The Constitution’s a sacred document, but it is not a suicide pact,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a gun owner. “This is not hard for me. Due process is important, but at the end of the day, we are at war.”

Graham clarified in a press release:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after voting in support of the Collins amendment to prevent terrorists from buying guns.

The amendment survived a procedural vote, 52-46, and remains eligible for a final vote.

Graham said:

“At the end of the day this really is about counter-terrorism, not gun control. We are a nation at war against radical Islam and under increasing threats both here at home and abroad.

“President Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure and helped give rise to the very threats we face. I have long argued we must do more to counter the threat abroad. However, it is also important we take steps here at home to protect ourselves as well. It’s why I supported the Collins Amendment.

“Simply put — I don’t want anyone who is too dangerous to fly on a plane to buy a gun.

“To be on these lists today means there is reasonable suspicion and credible evidence that the individual in question is involved with or in support of terrorist activities. There are about 109,000 people on these lists and 99% of them are foreign nationals, not U.S. citizens. There are only about 2,700 Americans who could be impacted by this measure.

“I believe in due process and I was insistent the amendment contain provisions to ensure those who should not be on these lists can clear their name. We put the burden of proof on the government to show the individual is a danger and should not be allowed to purchase a gun. If the government fails, the individual’s rights are upheld and the government will pay their legal tab.

“This debate will continue and I will continue to work to find common ground that both protects the rights of law-abiding citizens and prevents terror suspects from purchasing guns. The differences between the competing approaches are narrowing.

“I will continue to strive to be a senator that can bring us together and find common ground in times of great threat.
####

He’s right about continuing to strive to be a senator but all wrong beyond that.

The Act isn’t about counter-terrorism or about gun control. It’s just another law and another burden on the people.

Graham is correct that Hussein Obama’s policies have only made the threat of terrorism worse. To be fair though, Hussein Obama has only continued the disaster of a policy put in place by Bush 43. And Graham’s proposals on the subject, whenever he spouts off, are always of the kind which would make things EVEN WORSE.

At home he says there are 109,000 people on the watch lists. Of those only 1% or 2,700 are U.S. Citizens (closer to 2.5% by my math). If 106,300 foreign nationals are on the lists of suspected terrorists, why the hell are they not rounded up and deported immediately?

Neither Graham nor any other Senator really cares about Due Process. This proposal, like S.551, has a huge loophole to allow the Attorney General carte blanche authority over who goes on the list and allows the government to ultimately assert national security as an end-around to avoid due process in court. By Graham’s math that means 2,700 Americans right now could be out of luck; the list would surely grow if the Act passes into law. Don’t look for any of the foreigners to go home; in fact, more and more will just keep coming.

Graham’s position may be summed up as: “We’re at war (with an enemy we created and brought home). Therefore the Second Amendment and due process of law can go out the window.”

The saddest part of all this (as if it isn’t sad enough) is that the whole thing is pointless. Gun control does not work to stop gun violence. Period. None of the criminals and terrorists Collins and Graham feign interest in stopping would be subjected to any provisions of the Act. The University of Chicago “just discovered” that criminals don’t buy guns the legal way (surprise, surprise!). So much for soft gun control controlling crime. Even hardened European gun control does next to nothing to stop gun violence. When it comes to government gun control it’s all about the state controlling citizens and about perception (image over substance).

Then there’s the issue of bombs…

All this shows again and again you cannot trust the people who created the problem to know how to solve it. Don’t buy the gun-fly lie.

Senators propose more burdens on the People. NY Times.

Fake Sex, Lies, and Red Tape

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Perrin’s definition of government: (Noun) (originating around 10,000 B.C. in Hell) A collection of psychopathic control freaks hell-bent on minding everyone else’s business at gun point. This lowly institution is good for killing people, enriching bankers, and not much else.

Show me a government, any government, and I’ll show you a murder of monstrous, freedom-crushing maniacs. Meddlesome at best, Satanic at worst, an unfit concept long passed over by civilization.

Texas once had a law banning the sale of dildos – not making that up. One woman was actually prosecuted after holding a sales party at her home. Several adult entertainment businesses sued the State claiming a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation. See: Reliable Consultants, Inc., et al. v. Earle and The State of Texas, 517 F.3d 738, Slip Op. 06-51067 (5th Cir., 2008). The Fifth Circuit struck down the law and struck a blow for individual freedom (as corny a freedom as may be…).

The Texas Solicitor who argued (in vain) against the sale of rubber weapons of mass destruction was none other than Presidential candidate Ted “Glen Beck’s Man Crush” Cruz  – he the victor of the recent Colorado GOP non primary. I’m not sure how much tax money he wasted on the case (Federal Court ain’t cheap rent). He did obviously waste the time of the Judges, earning himself a 2-1 overthrow. Teddy declined to take the case higher. Lonely housewives breathed easier. Or, rapidly. Something.

The Fifth Circuit took down Texas’s law in as much because of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. at 578 (2003) (a la Bowers v. Hardwick) as because the government presented no evidence of any legitimate state interest necessitating such an idiotic, overbearing, busybody ban in the first place. More on legitimacy in a moment. The Court held: “The State’s primary justifications for the statute are “morality based.” The asserted interests include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting the commercial sale of sex.” Reliable, Id. at Slip 10.

Perhaps recognizing that public morality is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence, the State asserts that an interest the statute serves is the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices and their advertisement.” It is undeniable that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from improper sexual expression. However, the State’s generalized concern for children does not justify such a heavy-handed restriction on the exercise of a constitutionally protected individual right. Ultimately, because we can divine no rational connection between the statute and the protection of children, and because the State offers none, we cannot sustain the law under this justification.

Id, at 11 (double emphasis added).

The State and Teddy came to battle with no factual evidence and a shaky “moral” legal argument. Morals are good. Their best in their place. Many are upset by the notion that one cannot legislate morality. A ruling like this is salt in their wounds. Their reaction is evidence of their own lack of morality, of a substitution of the Divine with the positive. God will handle matters related to morality. He does not need help from Texas or any other band of liars and thieves. Speaking of morality and Ted Cruz, Ted now advocates carpet bombing. Incinerating civilians is much more moral than selling a vibrator; God will surely agree.

The moment has come! Let’s look at the Texan idea that the state as an interest in banning sex toys in order to protect children and promote procreation (making up our evidence, if needed, as the State provided none). Law professors and black-robed priests prattle on about various standards of state interests – to be weighed against human freedoms or rights. Compelling, rationally related, important, legitimate – all artful when written out in a brief but still bullshit. I care, here, about the factor of legitimacy, real legitimacy. When talking about people (women one would hope) who use these…devices it becomes obvious they are the sorts who are not interested, at the time, in procreation. They’re looking for a little fun. They’re minding their own business behind closed doors.

Government is not content to leave anyone alone, that much is clear. What, really, honestly, is a state’s interest in procreation, children and humans in general. There is no guaranteed supply of people; no state is just entitled to subjects. In their absence the state would have no one to govern, to boss around. Therein lies the interest. Children are future taxpayers to the state. They are future speed trap victims. They are future cannon-fodder to march off to war. It’s immoral from the state’s perspective to withhold future victims, victims who might be needed to carry out such morality as a carpet bombing run.

The other week another opinion came out a different Court of Appeals on a different topic. Whereas the Fifth Circuit got Reliable right, the Ninth missed the Constitution on searches and seizures in United States v. Magallon-Lopez, ___F.3d___, Slip Op. 14-30249 (9th Cir., March 31, 2016). Different results for freedom but both cases highlight the hateful, demented existence of government.

In Magallon-Lopez the famously liberal Ninth Circuit sided with the police state. “The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that police officers can lie to suspects in regards to a traffic stop — even when no violation has occurred. The ruling essentially gives police officers carte blanche to stop anyone they want for absolutely no reason — merely acting on a hunch.” Matt Agorist, Court Rules Police Can Legally Make Up Lies to Pull People Over to Fish for Criminal Behavior, The Free Thought Project, April 11, 2016.

The criminal subject matter of Magallon is as unpopular as that of Reliable was silly. Defendant Magallon was a meth peddler, unwelcome in most communities. Still, we play the cases we are dealt. Both actions revolve around universal rights and are only brought to light by their subject participants. Both demonstrate government will do anything to abrogate liberty.

The defendant, who did not and could not seriously contest the existence of reasonable suspicion for stopping the car, contended that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer who pulled him over deliberately lied when stating the reason for the stop, and the reason the officer gave was not itself supported by reasonable suspicion. Rejecting this contention, the panel wrote that so long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion. The panel concluded that in light of the information obtained during the stop, the officers had probable cause to seize the car.

Magallon-Lopez, Id. at Slip 2 (Summary)(emphasis added).

Magallon and a friend were suspected by the DEA of running drugs. This was known to local Montana police who initiated a traffic stop. The asserted reason for the stop was an improper lane change – a flat lie. The vehicle was seized and searched, meth was found, and the occupants arrested. Again, the police only knew that other police suspected the defendant of carrying drugs (these are illegal for the same specious reasons sex toys were in Texas). The arresting officers had no actual knowledge of real criminal activity. Therefore they lied. And, lying is okay as long as it is done by the government. Given this new standard I may have to refresh How to Interact with the Police – best to just live your life completely in a basement somewhere.

So much for the Fourth Amendment. The Court withheld a ruling on Due Process grounds (really, they did enough). No dissent in this case, just a concurrence which noted that Montana officers are statutorily bound to disclose their (real) reasons for arresting someone. Lying and breaking the law are okay so long as committed by servants of the state.

A “God-fearing” conservative desiring war over privacy. Former “liberals” selling out liberty for lies and lawlessness. No, one doesn’t need a government for this – an insane asylum would be enough.

Intimitated.org.

By the way: this is post number 450. Rolling!

Exile of Justice: Snowden Offers to Return for Fair Trial

21 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Three years ago Edward Snowden worked as a contractor for the National Security Agency. Alarmed by the NSA’s massive invasion of privacy and violation of civil liberties he leaked thousands of pages of classified information about the program to the public. His revelations were really nothing new; anyone with both eyes open could have learned the truth about the spy agency’s sinister agenda nearly twenty years earlier. They watch and listen to everything and everyone constantly. It’s conceivable that even as I type this article an NSA computer is dissecting it. Certainly within minutes of my official posting the electronic analysis will be completed. The whole thing will be archived. If the computer senses a threat, I will be passed on to human analysts.

Most of these people spend their days on Facebook or playing video games. Usually they miss alerts. That’s good when it comes to dissenting bloggers, bad when it’s ISIS. However, if a human verfies a possible threat, an investigation may ensue.

Again, if the danger is real and the investigative methods legal, it is a good system. There are plenty of real bad guys out there. As for the method, most electronic gathering is accomplished via open air interception. Anyone with a good enough scanner can capture a host of free floating transmissions. If you want your communication secure, either encrypt it, mask it, or don’t transmit it.

Snowden discovered that when open intercepts aren’t enough the government will illegally wiretap and spy as necessary. The illegality comes from a lack of warrant, lack of probable cause, and a total absence of oversight.

Acting as a whistleblower he disclosed this scheme to the public. As thanks the American redneckery and law and order, evangelical types branded him a traitor; the government declared him a fugitive. He now lives somewhere in Russia.

His choice of refuge turns geo-politics on its head. Thirty years ago Russia was a communist dictatorship that kept the people in line through spying and intimidation. Back then America was a freer country, a proud defender of the rights of the citizenry. Things change.

Snowden faces prosecution and assured imprisonment for decades should he return home. Yesterday, via video, he told a group of New Hampshire based libertarians he is willing to come back and face the music – conditionally. “I’ve told the government I would return if they would guarantee a fair trial where I can make a public interest defense of why this was done and allow a jury to decide,” he said.

lady-justice1

Google.

The whole affair is pointless to begin with. Three years later nothing has changed. No tangible evidence of damage to national security has manifested due to the leaks. Another holder of classified information, who leaked the same, is a leading contender for President. The people, most of them, never heard Snowdon’s warning in the first place. Those that heard forgot having more important things to attend – television, tattoos, football, etc. The NH libertarians are part of the .003% that get it. They represent a statistical outlier, an anomaly not worthy of official consideration. The NSA spies on, unhindered.

If Snowden ever returns and is prosecuted, he WILL NOT receive a fair trial. Such things simply do not happen in 21st century America. In fact, the American courtroom is the last place one should expect to find justice. No one gets a fair trial. Most don’t get a trial period. Snowden knows this. Thus, he lives abroad.

He and his attorneys have explored a plea deal with the feds. Most criminal cases end in pleas rather than trials. This is because people understand the system is so corrupt, it is usually better to accept a shorter jail term by coping to lesser charges. There have been exceptions. I recall a woman in Alabama who, faced with criminal tax charges, took the IRS to court and won. James Trafficant did the same thing in the 1980s. Both were plain lucky.

Snowden is looking for something different. He asks that his trial be conducted according to the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment requires: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” It mandates due process of law. That will not happen.

The particular charges are tantamount to Treason, one of the three specifically enumerated crimes in Article One of the Constitution. I’ll give the government that solid ground.

An indictment against Snowden has already been issued by a federal grand jury. Such juries used to be an independent check on prosecutorial misconduct. Today they merely indict as ordered by the U.S. Attorney, being no more than a tool of the DOJ. Defendants do not have a say in the process and the government can present any information, true or false (frequently lies) anyway it wants. Thus, fairness has already been compromised.

The Fifth Amendment mandates Due Process and prohibits double jeopardy. Rest assured that if, by odd chance, Snowden beat the charges, the government could then charge him with something else. Or, they could declare him a material witness, enemy combatant, material witness enemy, leprechaun or any other term(S) they make up and just imprison him. Just because they can. They could also just kill him without pretense or explanation. Just because.

In between the grand jury’s lapdogging and the double jeopardy potentially lies the trial. At trial the government controls everything. They get to present any type of evidence they like, often as a surprise to the defense. The defense is discouraged from attacking said evidence even when it is demonstrably false. The judge will move heaven and earth to keep defense friendly information out of the show. Occasionally defendants try to put the government on trial too. Judges, being government agents themselves, try to stop this. Remember, Snowden could bring in thousands of pages of documents damaging to the state. His ultimate argument could be that even if he technically broke the law, he only did so to expose worse behavior by the feds, thus he is really innocent and should be acquitted.

Such argument leads to potential jury nullification of the specific law as applied to a specific defendant. This is not a theory but an ancient design, a final check against corruption where the entirety of the legal and factual circumstances are left to the enlightened determination of the jury. Judges will defy the laws of physics to try to stop this from happening.

Then there’s the jury itself. Ages ago juries were a collection of intelligent men who were peers of, actual friends of the defendant. Being his friends and knowing his character they could weigh the presented evidence against their knowledge, thereby forming a reasonable judgement.

Today elaborate safeguards are in place to ensure jurors have never heard of the defendant let alone be his friends. The government wants dumb submissive jurors who will easily go along with what they’re told. Modern society makes this a given. A jury is usually nothing more than twelve stupid, poorly dressed, uninterested saps who may just as well be assembled of random midnight Wal-Mart shoppers.

This is the program to which Snowden would return. Sad, yes. Comical, perhaps. Fair? Anything but. Luckily, modern Russia is a pretty nice place.