Jeff Sessions Goes All Common Law, All County Guardian

13 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

Tags

AG Sessions, Anglo-American, English common law, law, sheriff

“I want to thank every sheriff in America. Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process,” Sessions said in remarks at the National Sheriffs Association winter meeting, adding, “The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.”

Interesting that he’s not going after the weed or re-explaining something to Congress.

Very interesting that such an innocuous phrase might generate fear of “nefarious meaning.”

Most interesting that a 1970’s television show theme had it right:

He has no fear,
he’s always here,
his morale stands alone.
A man of dreams,
who guards our things as if they were his own.
He walks the streets from early dawn,
he stands behind our laws.
Both big and small,
he bends them all,
who dares to fight his cause.

-Sheriff Lobo, Frankie Lane.

That was the way it was, the way it was supposed to be…

hqdefault

Lobo.

Worth(Less) County Sheriff Back for More Fun ‘n Felonies

25 Wednesday Oct 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

civil liberties, crime, Georgia, hypocrisy, law, sheriff

At least he’s consistent in an inconsistent kind of way. Hick Sheriff Jeff Hobby, who broke the law with his illegal searches/sexual molestation of 900 kids at a high school – based on unwarranted suspicion of drug charges that didn’t exist, was more than willing to break the law to shield his own son from drug charges that did exist:

A Georgia sheriff accused of violating the civil rights of hundreds of high school students when he ordered a massive school drug search is now accused of interfering with a GBI investigation into his son’s recent drug arrest.

In April, Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby drew ire from scores parents who accused him and his deputies of violating the civil rights of their children. Hobby ordered a search that resulted in his deputies locking down the Worth County High School for four hours as they searched students’ pockets, waistbands and underwear. Some students said they felt sexually violated.

A grand jury indicted the sheriff and two deputies Oct. 3 in a case involving allegations of false imprisonment, violation of oath of office and sexual battery.

The sheriff now stands accused by the local prosecutor of interfering with the criminal investigation into his teenage son, Zachary Lewis Hobby. The younger Hobby was arrested Oct. 9 and charged with felony possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and criminal trespass.

The sheriff and his wife burst into an interview room at the jail where a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent was questioning their son after the arrest, according to a letter sent to Gov. Nathan Deal by Tifton Judicial Circuit District Attorney Paul Bowden.

“Sheriff Hobby and his wife, who is also an employee of the Worth County Sheriff’s Office, barged into the room ostensibly to invoke the seventeen (17) year old’s Fifth Amendment Rights for him,” according to Bowden.

Zachary Hobby had already been advised of his rights and had chosen to speak to the GBI agent, Bowden wrote. The sheriff’s intrusion into the GBI interview helped protect his son from additional questioning.

“The agent chose to cease the interview at that point since he was inside the Sheriff’s jail,” according to Bowden.

The DA also noted that following the arrest of Hobby’s son he “was housed in the Worth County jail instead of being transferred to a jail not under the supervision of his father.”

Yeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaw!

For those of you outside the State of Georgia: the whole state is not like this; some counties are worse.

Maybe instead of sending him to prison, they could just let Hobby run the FBI or CIA.

868afdd1489fbe70be99ffbd315b0867--dukes-of-hazard-basset-hound

Time was when we had real lawmen. CBS.

Waco: A Harbinger, 20 Years Later

19 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

1993, AR-15, army, ATF, Bill Clinton, children, church, citizens, Congress, Constitution, CS gas, David Koresh, due process, FBI, felony, FLIR, Fort Hood, freedom, George Roden, government, grenades, guns, JAG, Janet Reno, John Danforth, law, lies, media, methamphetamines, military, murder, Posse Comitatus, Seventh Day Adventists, sheriff, snipers, tanks, Texas, thugs, UPS, Waco, War, warrant

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fiery end of the federal government’s siege on the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas. April 19, 1993 was the end of a month and a half ordeal probably unlawfully initiated against a peaceful, if weird, group of Christians by the tyrannical Imperial federal government. In addition to being a serious injustice in and of itself, it also stands as a critical warning to all of us free citizens currently enduring the 21st Century.

(Separation of Church and State? Google Images.)

I recall the media’s treatment of the story during the winter and spring of 1993. Essentially, they reported the feds’ words verbatim and, in keeping with modern journalistic tact, did so with no critical analysis whatsoever. The Clinton administration and their lamestream puppets said that David Koresh was a deranged and dangerous man who had brainwashed a large group of followers Jim Jones style and who had engaged in several serious criminal offenses. All of this was based on lies. Seventhy-six innocent civilians and four stormtroopers lost their lives because of these lies. Numerous others, on both sides, were scarred, physically and mentally, as a result of the battle.

Twenty years later, there has never been an honest official review of the crimes committed by the government between February 28th and April 19th that fateful year. Laws have been rendered obsolete, innocents have been imprisoned, criminals have been promoted and lionized, and the truth might have just as well burned in the terrible conflagration.

The Branch Davidians separated from the mainline Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1955. Essentially, they believed they were living in the “end times” and ordered their lives accordingly. There developed a power struggle within the group between David Koresh and George Roden. During the 1980’s there was a violent confrontation between the factions which resulted in several prosecutions; there were no convictions and the matter faded away. Following his conviction for a 1989 axe murder, Roden was imprisoned in a mental facility. Koresh took command of the church.

Koresh believed himself the final prophet of the church and the man who would guide the group through the end of days, the rapture, or whatever. His methods were odd to say the least. His followers moved into his compound in Waco where Koresh lead a polygamist prophetly existence. I have never understood why people ever allow themselves to come under the sway of such men. At any rate, Koresh and his followers were largely isolated from the rest of the world, engaged in their final preparations.

(David Koresh, born Vernon Wayne Howell. Google.)

Those preparations, in part, lead to the government’s investigation and subsequent charges. The charges were as follows: manufacture and possession of illegal weapons (machine guns), the manufacture of methamphetamines, and child abuse and statutory rape of young girls. I seem to recall tax evasion charges as well but cannot locate definitive documentation. The IRS can always bring tax charges or administrative actions against anyone due to the impossible nature of the tax code.

There was no evidence to support the meth charges. Roden had allegedly run a meth lab at the church during the 80s. However, the operation had ceased years before Koresh took over the group. Not approving a drugs, Koresh dutifully turned over to local authorities the remains of lab. That was the extent of the evidence – none. Some FBI and ATF agents acknowledged the lack of evidence on these counts.

The allegations of child abuse, etc. came from Koresh’s critics, both before and after the 1993 ordeal. Such crimes, even when real, are not federal matters. They are within the jurisdiction of the state. Nevertheless, the accusations were included against Koresh and Co. in order to make them look as bad as possible to the grand jury and judge. The government never lets the truth interfere with a case.

Reports indicate that Texas child-protective authorities had previously visited the church and talked extensively with Koresh. No charges resulted. Koresh was also on relatively friendly speaking terms with the local Sheriff, who later expressed concern over federal actions.

As for the “machine guns,” the charges stemmed from a report by a UPS delivery driver of weapons components being shipped to the group in Waco. The driver relayed his information to the Sheriff’s Office. A deputy then informed the BATF (BATFE or ATF). Another Koresh detractor and former member provided hearsay of the illegal conversion of AR-15 rifles into automatic M-16s. The Davidians ran a legitimate weapons business, the Mag Bag, in order to raise funds for their operation. None of their wares and weapons were illegally obtained. However, the ATF (again not concerned with the truth) mislead a federal judge by speculating that the mere existence of the legal weapons might suggest a crime.

The ATF also informed the judge that a neighbor had previously reported the sound of automatic gun fire emanating from the church. They failed to leave out the fact that, as with the child abuse charges, this sound was also reported to the Sheriff, who had investigated the matter and concluded there was no criminal activity.

You may recall that during the siege and its aftermath, the media parrotted reports of a certain number of machine guns at the church. The number continued to decline oddly as time passed until it reached th true number – zero.

As part of their speculative fishing trip the ATF set up surveillance from a nearby house and sent an unconvincing infiltrator to join the group. Koresh became aware of both but said nothing. Once their lies were neatly typed out, the ATF obtained search and arrest warrants and prepared to descend on the church on February 28, 1993.

A reported was tipped off about the impending raid and asked for directions to the church from a postman, who happened to be Koresh’s brother-in-law. Thus was Koresh tipped off. He then dismissed the ATF’s informant from the group. The informant reported that, when he departed the church, the members were praying.

Having come to belive their own lies, the ATF geared for battle against the church members. They illegally assembled at Fort Hood, a nearby Army installation (remember the Posse Comitatus Act, anyone?). They were well armed and well armoured though their other preparations were unbelievably incompetent. Rather than arriving in marked vehicles so as to identify themselves as lawmen, the agents rode up in cattle trailers pulled by several pick-up trucks (private models belonging to various agents). They also neglected to carry communications equipment. The first reports of a gun fight at the church came from the church itself; the members called 911 to report they were being attacked by a gang of heavily armed thugs.

Those thugs, once they disembarked their trailers, immediately opened fire on the church – in order to kill and silence the canine residents. Normally, approaching officers identify themselves as such and attempt to serve their warrants peacefully.

Thus, with no indication of the agent’s legal intentions (if any), the Davidians responded as Americans typically do to violent intruders. They shot back. A lethal gun battle raged from around 45 minutes. The local Sheriff, who said he was not apprised of the raid and knew nothing of it until the Davidians called for help, was unable to communicate with the ATF (dead radios don’t receive calls). The Sheriff’s Office eventually negotiated a cease-fire. Five Davidains and four agents were dead. At this point, Koresh’s and his followers’ fates were sealed. The government does not tolerate the killing of their own, even in cases of self-defense.

(“No-Knock” warrant entry. Fox 4 Dallas.)

Following the ceasefire, one of the most infamous sieges in American history commenced. The government dispensed with all vestiges of common sense and gradually increased tensions at the church. Eventually, all the communications and utilities of the Davidians were cut off. This left the members without running water and electricity. The government apparently had lost interest in those abused children.

The FBI took over the operation. Some within the agency favored negotiating a peaceful end to the ordeal. Others, who views won out in the end, favored aggressive military action. Koresh allowed eleven of his followers to depart – they were immediately arrested and some were prosecuted. At least they survived. As April passed the government prepared to end the confrontation violently. As part of their campaign, the FBI mobilized military assets including, helicopters, light armoured vehicles, main battle tanks, and tactical advice from the military.

You may recall from my column, Posse Comitatus, that using the force of the military in domestic law enforcement is a felony. Remember, no-one has ever been prosecuted under the Act. However, some within the government remained honest and faithful to the law. Before rendering illegal assistance to the FBI, the Army attempted to procedurally clear the matter internally. The case was given to a JAG Attorney for analysis, particularly as to the FBI’s request for assistance. The JAG Officer promptly reported the scheme was a Posse Comitatus violation. He was told to stick his opinion in his ear.

The FBI, now armed for battle in an actual war, began to harass the Davidians intensely. In addition to cutting off their utilities and treating those afore-mentioned children to high-decibel AC/DC music around the clock, the government constantly circled the church with their tanks. They flattened everything outside, including the Davidians automobiles. They also intentionally ran over grave sites repeatedly (a crime).

(We don’t need no stinking Posse Comitatus! Google.)

At last, on April 19th, the government made its move. President Clinton still desired a peaceful, negotiated end but was convinced by his chief-Nazi, Attorney General Janet Reno, to use violent force. Reno’s justification for the use of overwhelming force varied and changed as time passed and the number of machine guns declined.

The FBI used their tanks to smash holes through the walls of the church. Into these they pumped CS gas, which as a chemistry major like Reno (“consulted” by the military) should have known, is delivered via a highly flammable powder. The FBI also launched numerous flash-bang grenades into the building. As normally happens when extreme heat and sparks are applied to a flammable substance, a fire erupted. Of course, the government blamed the fire on the Davidians – why stop the lies, at this point. You will surely recall the fire, it is engrained in my memory forever. See the picture above.

They government continued to ram the building with tanks. They drove one into the building at a point where they knew the children were likely gathered. I have seen video of a Davidian crushed and shredded beneath the tracks of one of the 70-ton vehicles.

The fire killed the Davidians. Some attempted to escape only to be shot to death by FBI (or military) snipers. I watched a video of a subsequent Congressional investigation of the event. The Congressmen watched a video of the assault unfold that was filmed used FLIR (forward-looking infrared). An expert identified various flashes as muzzle blasts directed toward fleeing, unarmed Davidians. A member, indignant that anyone would question or accuse the government of murder, demanded to know what the expert’s expertise with FLIR. The expert’s assertion he had invented the technology was insufficient for the panel.

All ensuing investigations, including that of Former Senator and Special Counsel John Danforth, exonerated the government. We call this a whitewashing. Following a criminal trial, eight Davidains were convicted of firearms charges. Four were acquitted outright and all were cleared of murder charges. Following numerous appeals the Davidans received much lighter sentences and all were freed from custody by 2007. No criminal investigation or prosecution of the federal agents was ever conducted. In another whitewashing, the survivors and the families of the deceased lost a civil lawsuit in the case of Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2003).

This story is one of massive and complete injustice. It should also serve as a dire warning to all Americans of the government’s boundless power and ability to get away with any crime, no matter the circumstances. Remember Waco whenever you see or hear accusations from the government. Remember who really abused children. Remember who lied to initiate and to justify their actions. Remember and do all you ever can to combat injustice. We owe that much, at least, to our deceased citizens and to the Natural order of the law.

Don’t Drone Me, Bro!

07 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

14th Amendment, 9/11/2001. 12/7/1941, Americans, army, Austin Rhodes, banksters, Big Club, capitalism, children, Clay Whittle, Constitution, Cornfield County, corporatism, Daivd Koresh, drones, due process, Eric Holder, feds, Fifth Amendment, filibuster, GA, government, guilt, idiots, innocence, JAG, Jesus Christ, King John, law, law enforcement, lies, Magna Carta, murder, Natural Law, poor bird, Posse Comitatus Act, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Scott Dean, Senate, sheriff, tanks, taxes, Texas, the Devil, The Empire, Thomas More, Waco massacre

This post rambles from subject to subject. Be forewarned.

Drones…

Just last night I thrilled you, my dear readers, with a few news stories concerning the law. While Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder refuses to prosecute super-rich banksters for criminal wrong-doing, he has no problem using drones to murder “ordinary” Americans for any reason or no reason. Well, in his defense, He said the drones would only be used to thwart catastrophic events like the 9/11/2001 or Pearl Harbor attacks. I don’t believe him. It doesn’t matter since he’s not in charge of when the triggers are squeezed.

This morning I was listening to the radio and had the privilege of hearing my friend Austin Rhodes (WGAC, 580 AM, Augusta) give his morning commentary. He initially praised Senator Rand Paul (Ron’s son) for his filibuster yesterday which targeted the administration’s dystopian law enforcement policies. Then he surprised me. He, playing devil’s advocate, asked if a drone strike on David Koresh (remember him?) in 1993 would have prevented the later bloodshed at Koresh’s Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas. At first I was indignant but then I realized the value of his question. The ultimate answer is “who knows?” No-one does for certain.

It is my opinion that the government was out to get Koresh and his senior worshippers and would have slaughtered them all anyway. Austin and I disagree on the nature of the events that unfolded in Waco twenty years ago. That’s the beauty of America, we can agree to disagree.

There was much disagreement in early 1993, regarding the pre-assualt on the church. For instance, the warrant obtained by the Imperial stormtroopers was defective. Perhaps they could not decide on what, if anything, was wrong with Koresh and Co. That might explain the defects in the law sited to obtain the warrant. The local Sheriff and the State of Texas disagreed with the feds that crimes were being committed in the church. A JAG officer (military attorney), when asked about the legality of deploying military assets for this domestic law enforcement “operation,” disagreed with his inquirers. He reported the scheme was illegal, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, etc. The first Stormtroopers on the scene must have disagreed about the wisdom of carrying communication devices in case something went wrong, whether to open fire immediately upon exiting their horse trailer (official police version), and whether the church members would return fire.

In the end, the dissenters were silenced. The rest is history. As I recall the Empire had several grounds for the War in Waco: 1) income tax evasion; 2) illegal drugs; 3) illegal firearms; and 4) the abuse of children. I think they eventually proved the tax count as they can prove that against almost anyone due to the psychotic nature of our tax laws and regulations. I think there was no evidence of the guns or drugs – any existing specimens would have been destroyed in the government’s fire. As for the children, while I recall some survivors insisted there had been some sort of impropriety, most (all?) of the children were killed in the fire or crushed to death beneath the Army’s 70-ton tank. Some may have been shot by snipers. Anyway, there wasn’t a lot of evidence after the fact.

Still, none of this answers Austin’s question. I’ll pose a question which is easy to answer definitively: Would a drone strike on Rev. Koresh been legal? Two questions, really – Would the drone strike have been ethical? The answer to both questions is a certain “NO!”

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is clear – “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (Emphasis added). The Fourteenth Amendment backs up the Fifth’s Due Process provision. These concepts date back the Magna Carta in 1215. The truth is eternal, it remains the same in 1215, 1791, 1993, or 2013. The theory is that if the government wants to kill someone, they must adhere to a certain process. We generally refer to the key part of the process as a trial (Jury, evidence, and stuff). The theory jives with what that crazy carpenter, Jesus Christ, talked about twelve centuries before King John admitted his authority was not arbitrary.

For those of you who might have heard Austin and taken his question as a simple endorsement by mistake, how about this: Would Sheriff Whittle’s use of a drone against Scott Dean saved us the trouble and expense of a trial? He was convicted, after all, by twelve wise citizens. The fact of his innocence and his accuser’s later recantation are irrelevant for this discussion. For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Cornfield County, Scott Dean was a County Commissioner. He adopted some girls. One of the girls, a teenager with a history of lying in court, accused him of a heinous crime. He denied any guilt but was convicted none the less. He went to prison. Then, his lying adopted daughter, safely out of the country, admitted she made the story up and Dean was in fact innocent.

Since the recent revelation of Dean’s innocence I’m sure the twelve men and women who sent him to prison have the utmost difficulty sleeping at night. Can you imagine the Sheriff’s guilt and shame had he used a drone instead of the law? Natural Law and its proper extensions in the corporeal world are important. “I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” Saint Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons, 1966.

Due Process of law is a Natural Right to which every person is entitled when human laws exist. This was obvious to earlier generations of Americans.

Too Big…

In my recent second installment of Slavery In America, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/slavery-in-america-part-ii-of-iii/, I mentioned the Big Club members who are invested in our modern plantation. The giant banks are charter members of the club. I mentioned their immunity from criminal prosecution last night. It seems they are too big to fail, too big to jail, and they are rapidly sucking up all the wealth in this country. See this story: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/corporatism-a-system-of-control-designed-by-the-monopoly-men-of-the-global-elite. It’s about “corporatism,” the fascists’ bastardization of capitalism. It’s an excellent article from an eye-opening site.

It Could Be Worse…

We could all be stuck in a cage and abandoned at the car wash…

(This poor guy was! He was happily adopted though!)

Yeah, ramblin more than normal… 🙂

How to Interact with the Police

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

1791, 42 USC 1983, 911, advice, Americans, Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Fund, arrest, Augusta, authority, Bill of Rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, citizen, citizen-police encounter, clients, concealed carry, Constitution, Courts, crime, don't talk, education, evidence, felony, Fifth Amendment, firearms, Georgia, government, gun, H.L. Mencken, illegal, incrimination, James Duane, law enforcement, lawyers, libertarian, Libertarian Party, Ludowici, militia, Miranda v. Arizona, Natural Rights, North Carolina, open carry, permit, police, public, right to remain silent, searches, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, sheriff, South Carolina, States, Switzerland, Terry v. Ohio, Vermont, warrant, witness, Youtube

Don’t talk. Do not ever talk to the police under any circumstances whatsoever, ever. Ever. This is the general libertarian legal advice given by good lawyers who wish to spare their clients and anyone else listening the possibility of unwittingly implicating themselves in criminal activity, whether they were actually involved or not.

I like this advice and tend to give it to clients myself. However, as with most legal issues, this matter is not quite that simple. Well, maybe it is, but there are reasons why you might need to address the cops. I’ll get to those a little later.

On March 10, 2013 I will address the Libertarian Party of the greater Augusta, Georgia area. I was asked to speak on the subject of citizen interaction with the police in general and, more specifically, interactions involving a citizen carrying a firearm. I will do so happily. This column is a preview of what I will likely discuss.

There are two federally recognized (sometimes) natural rights which are affected by such situations – actually, they are different tangents of the same right – the right to self-preservation. The first involves not implicating oneself in wrongdoing, the second involves the right of self-defense. The Constitution lists these rights under Amendments V and II, respectively. All State Constitutions recognize the same rights to a degree somewhere within their texts. I’ll stick with federal language as a universal representation:

The Fifth Amendment reads: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The above subject primarily deals with the “witness against himself” clause, though due process is implicated as well.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This relates, obviously, to carrying a weapon while interacting with the police.

Both of these rights, despite laws and court rulings in their favor, have experienced considerable erosion since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (most rights have). I will not necessarily discuss the origin of the rights, their history, or their decline herein. As is, I will just accept them as plainly written.

Back to not talking to the police. Many attorneys, including yours truly, generally advise against talking to government employees of any stripe, not simply the police. This extends to telephone conversations (including 911 calls) as such calls are frequently recorded. I recently posted a link to this video (Don’t Talk to the Police): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc. The video is a 50 minute discussion of our subject by Regent Law School (Virginia) law professor James Duane. The advice is excellent. You’ll notice though that immediately after saying he will never talk to the police, professor Duane talks to a police officer. There are almost always exceptions to a general rule.

I’ll cover a few of those now. If you are a law professor who gives such a talk and you invite a police officer to participate, you will need to talk to the police. If you’re a nice person who walks by a cop on a sunny morning, you might say, “Good Morning!” – that’s talking to the police. If your child is kidnapped late one night you will probably call the police before anyone else. If you are the victim of another type of violent crime you might talk. If you are drunk, high, suffering from low blood sugar, or under a mental delusion, you might talk to the police, not remembering any of this advice at the time. If your friend, relative, co-worker, or neighbor is a cop … you get the picture.

Other government employees sometimes require your verbal attention too. These examples are almost too numerous to list. They range from telling a campaigning CongressCritter to buzz off when he disturbs your breakfast at the local cafe (happened to me once) to asking a clerk where the county vehicle tag office is.

Most of these examples are innocent enough. However, sometimes the police arrest and persecute people for innocent interactions. I had a client once who singed an insurance policy while paying for it. He was later arrested and charged with felony insurance fraud based on his signature. The crime didn’t even involve his particular policy. In such cases, no advice is sufficient; one must engage a competent attorney and fight the system.

My subject matter here is really how to interact with the cops when you are approached about a possible criminal action wherein you might be a suspect.

I recall from law school there are three tiers of citizen-police encounters. The first is a simple and voluntary meeting (like some of my above examples) wherein the citizen is free to leave. If you find yourself in a Tier One and you suspect the officer is probing you, ask if you are free to leave. If you are, do so immediately. Remember you do not have to say anything to the police no matter what they ask or say. In these simple situations you can just walk away and terminate the encounter.

The second tier is known in legal circles as a Terry stop (see: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). It is also more commonly called an investigatory stop. That means the approaching officer is officially investigating some alleged or potential criminal wrongdoing. The citizen is not necessarily free to leave and is technically under detention, even if temporarily so. A Tier One becomes a Terry stop if the officer responds that the citizen is not free to leave. At this point the citizen should shut up. The exceptions are again to ask if you are free to leave or if you are under arrest and to tell the officer you do not consent to any searches. Do not ever consent to searches.

The police are not supposed to arbitrarily initiate Terry stops (they do sometimes). Rather, they are supposed to have “articulable suspicion” that a crime has or may have been committed and that the citizen is a likely suspect or witness. The standard for such suspicion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by the individual case, though the common maxim is the officer must have something more than a hunch about the possible crime. Fuzzy, yes.

Terry stops originate from many sources: tips or reports of crime, something the officer witnesses, an emergency, a man-hunt, or something else. Frequently, the police have nothing at all in the way of evidence. Thus, they turn to the citizen for incriminating evidence. Citizens offer the evidence against themselves voluntarily in most cases. If you ever saw the TV show Cops, then you know a suspect will immediately start babbling on about what he did or didn’t do. This usually digs the suspect a nice hole – with bars. This is why you shouldn’t say anything. Do not help the police do their job. At this point you will either be arrested, further temporarily detained, or released regardless of what you say. Talking won’t help, so don’t do it.

The third tier is a formal arrest. If you are arrested you must absolutely cease talking period. At some point the police will advise you of your Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) – you know these from TV. They will tell you you have the right to remain silent and that anything you say can and will be used against you. Did you get that? Anything you say will be used against you. Give them nothing. Under arrest you only make one statement, repeatedly in necessary: “I want an attorney.” The police usually stop questioning at that point, sometimes they don’t. Just do not answer or make any other statements – at all. Be silent as you have the right.

Silence is the better rule in most of these encounters. By talking you will either implicate yourself or possibly give the officer(s) something else to consider in your prosecution. Sometimes officers hear things wrong or falsely report what a citizen says. They can make you out to be a liar. You’re not lying if you’re not talking.

I have been retained by several clients just over the issue of voluntary interrogations. I stopped the practice entirely after so many such incidents. The client would get a call from the police, asking the client to “come downtown” to answer a few questions or make a statement. Once a client demanded to visit the Sheriff to make a statement all on his own – over a non-issue. My constant advice to all of these folks was to not go and to say nothing. Most did not listen and I had to accompany them to the Q&A sessions. At those meetings I objected to each and every question the police asked and every statement the client uttered. That did not stop most of these people. I have literally watched as people talked themselves into felony prosecutions. Seeing the process as pointless and potentially liability-inducing on my part, I stopped participating. Don’t put your attorney through such torture. Don’t talk.

I’ve also been hired by clients after they talked to the police. I have read many statements and listened to many recording wherein a client essentially convicted himself. Often, without their own damning, idiotic testimony through such statements, the government would never have had a case to try. Don’t talk to the police.

Firearms add an extra dimension to the issue. America is the most heavily, privately armed country in the world. We should rejoice! The primary reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure the People would always be able to fend off a tyrannical government, all other purposes are ancillary.

Unfortunately, much has changed since 1791. Today, many Americans are afraid of firearms (and much else) and defer unwisely to the government for protection. Their fears are fueled by a few isolated stories from the lamestream media. Many of these cases, I suspect, are false-flag operations of the government, ginned up to alarm the frightened people. Remember always – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken.

In the old days, no-one looked twice at a person carrying a gun in public. It was what Americans did. You can still find the practice accepted in many rural communities. The practice is open and notorious in Switzerland (God bless the Swiss).

(A Swiss Militia member openly carrying a battlefield rifle in a grocery store. The blonde woman is not concerned – free people are not. Source: Google Images.)

The local LP sent me a video of a law student telling off a police officer who “detained” the student over a firearm. I seem to have misplaced the video link. You can surely find it or something similar on Youtube. Here’s my take on the matter. First, Americans have every right to go armed just about anywhere they want to, even though many jurisdictions illegally attempt to block this right. Second, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor – more on that in a second. Third, in the Georgia and much of the South, we are lucky to have pro-gun law enforcement. Many officers welcome armed citizens.

Let’s assume for argument’s sake, you encounter an officer with a dimmer view of freedom. Georgia and most other States allow concealed carry of weapons – usually with a permit. I think those permits are UnConstitutional. A few States like Vermont do not regulate of require such licenses. This issue is slowing making its way through the courts. We will see what becomes of it. For now, if you carry concealed, play the government’s game.

To avoid an unwanted and unnecessary confrontation over your gun, carry concealed. If they (the police or the easily alarmed) can’t see the weapon, they can’t inquire about it. Some State’s licenses come with the requirement that a citizen inform any approaching or present law officer that they have a license and are carrying. North and South Carolina come to mind. This is also UnConstitutional. Georgia is not such a State. Say nothing in Georgia. In fact, if you have the gun well concealed, say nothing wherever you are. If they don’t know, they don’t know – and they don’t need to.

If you carry openly, which is your right, you may expect someone to alert the police to “a man with a gun.” As a result, you may be approached by an officer. This would be a quasi-tier one/two encounter. Carrying a gun itself is not justification for any suspicion of wrongdoing. The police will inquire anyway. They may go as far as to handcuff you while they check your license and the gun. This a violation of your civil rights. I had a friend who was stopped by a traffic officer in Ludowici, Georgia one night. The officer inquired about my friend’s pistol and took the gun to “check it.” The officer then announced he would have to keep the gun until the next day in order to verify it really belonged to my friend and was carried properly. This was in keeping with Ludowici’s long-standing policy of public harassment.

Before I became really upset about the story my friend told me it had ended well. The Ludowici police chief, realised his officer had broken the law, immediately dispatched a courier to hand deliver the gun back to my friend. As my friend was happy, the issue died. A bloodless victory is the best kind as we say in court.

However, if you find yourself in a similar situation, the best thing to do is keep quiet. Do not tell off the officer as the afore-noted law student did, even though you are completely right. The police sometimes get nervous and arrest or murder “uppity” civilians and make up a good excuse for their actions in their report. The street is not the place to fight for your rights – unless the officer endangers your life. You can use force against the police if necessary, just as you would against any other armed thug. But, these situations are messy at best.

It is usually after such an encounter you should act – by contacting an attorney. You may very well have a civil rights action against the police (State or local) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or a Bivens action against federal officers [Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)]). An attorney can advise you in a particular case.

Two more specific situations, very briefly. First, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting you will likely have contact with the police. In such cases always identify yourself as the victim of the underlying crime. In order to legally use deadly force against another, one must reasonable belive that one’s life is in imminent danger from a criminal actor who simultaneously posses the ability and the proximity to in fact endanger innocent life. This is the general public standard, in most jurisdictions you have more leeway on your own property (stand your ground and castle statutes).

If you have to shoot someone (I hope you never do), report only the fact of the crime and that you ended it per the standard I just stated. The police may want additional statements. Do not make them. Tell the officer you take the matter very seriously and that you need to, accordingly, speak with your attorney before making any additional statements or answering any other questions. Again, if you are arrested (not always a given, here), say absolutely nothing. I am referral attorney for the Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Fund, based in Washington State, http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/. The Fund has produced an excellent series of videos on this subject. Legal and tactical shooting experts discuss in-depth how to handle these situations with your gun and with the law. I recommend you purchase and review these videos.

Second, if you are at home and the police knock on the door, do not open it. Do not let the police in volutarily for any reason. This by itself constitutes a consentual search (at least cursory). If the police have authority (a warrant) to enter your home, they will do it rather than asking you for permission. If they ask, they have no authority. Don’t help them gain it. I have former clients in prison because they opened a door for the police. Don’t do it and don’t talk to them.

Remember, in a specific case you may have, consult with a specific attorney for legal advice.

As for advice, nothing herein constitutes legal advice. Consider this, rather, a general legal education. When you see the police use common sense and do not talk if you can help it. Doing the first and refraining from the second may save you many headaches.

Operation Roadblocking Thunder

18 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

America, Benjamin Franklin, Blackstone, communism, Constitution, Courts, criminals, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, freedom, freedom of movement, Georgia, governor, Liberty, Nathan Deal, Natural Law, Operation Thunder, police, probable cause, Rolling Thunder, safety, sheriff, taxes, Vietnam, Voltaire, warrant

Ryan, a friend of mine, asked me for an article about “Operation Thunder” the other day. I misunderstood and thought he meant “Operation Rolling Thunder.” I was going to be slow in getting to that as it is a dated issue.

Rolling Thunder was a U.S. bombing campaign against the North Vietnamese from 1965 to 1968. It was part of one of our undeclared wars to stop communism. I’m sure the bombs killed plenty of people but the sorties and the war was a failure in the end. The communists won or at least we left them alone once close to 60,000 American men died. Like most wars, this one was pointless. The Vietnamese never tried to attack the U.S. and, forty years on, we now trade with and generally have good relations with Vietnam.

I learned today what the new “Operation Thunder” (“OT”) is. It’s a bombing campaign a little closer to home. Well, they’re not bombing yet, but it is as pointless as the war effort in Southeast Asia. It’s also illegal.

OT was implemented by the State of Georgia in 2007 (I wonder if I had heard of it earlier?) and it’s mission is to “detect Georgia’s high-crash corridors and reduce mounting highway deaths and serious injuries by introducing a high visibility law enforcement presence to help stabilize the extreme and illegal driving behaviors of careless motorists who cause those crashes.” See: http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/campaigns/thunder-task-force/. Rather than stabilize illegal driving, why don’t the police try to stop it? Of course, this is government and is not supposed to make any sense.

I have learned that the real purpose behind OT is collect more taxes from the citizens of Georgia. The cops (State and local) are looking for drunks, expired tags, unused seatbelts and anything else they can issue a citation for. You may be thinking, “Well, isn’t that what the police do?” Generally, it is – on a case by case basis. If a deputy on patrol sees you weaving all over the road he has probable cause to stop you and determine whether you are impaired. That’s not what they are doing here.

Rather than going after actual criminals, the police are going after everyone on the road. Or, at least those motorists who roll up to one of the OT roadblocks. There officers ask for driver’s licenses and registration and any other information they can get. I have information they are not limiting the practice to “surface” streets. apparently, the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office, with the cooperation of the Highway Patrol recently locked down the Bobby Jones Expressway (Interstate 520) in order to harass the driving public.

(Local Roadblock. Source: Google Images.)

Some say this is an acceptable practice if it takes drunks and other dangerous drivers off the road. Others say “good” drivers have nothing to worry about and so it’s all okay. It isn’t.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits warrantless searches and seizures. Georgia’s Constitution has a mirror provision. If you are stopped at a roadblock one night the odds are 0% the police have a warrant to arrest or search you, particularly. Particularity is a requirement for obtaining warrants. Just driving a car does not give them probable cause to believe you may be committing a crime. Thus, they have absolutely no legal basis for these illegal stops.

I have reports the police are flat-out asking invasive questions like, “Have you been drinking.” They can ask but you are under no compulsion to answer them. In fact, it’s a good idea to not talk to the police if you can help it. That’s where the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution comes into play. As drivers are effectively under arrest and not free to leave during their time stopped at these roadblocks, the right to remain silent comes into play. By asking inappropriate questions while holding you hostage, the police violate your 5th Amendment rights in addition to the those covered under the 4th. There’s also a natural right to move around freely – sometimes called the right to travel. They’re violating it too.

Again, some gleefully say they will endure such treatment so long as it fights crime. They miss the point entirely. As I noted in Natural Law, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” Sir. William Blackstone, backed by Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire. Why do all the good drivers have to sit through the roadblocks. Such a notion turns Blackstone’s statement on its head: “It’s better that all innocent motorists suffer, than one guilty escape.”

How much do they suffer? All suffer the violation of the natural rights. For some the consequences may be more tangible. What if you are coming home from a ten-hour road trip and find yourself stopped for thirty minutes only a few blocks from home? What’s that time worth? What if you run out of gas while waiting? Will the cops run down to the gas station with a can for you? What if your child is dying and you are desperate to get to the hospital? This all flies in the face of American tradition. Ben Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Franklin, Reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania, 1755.

The public that accepts schemes like OT deserve neither liberty nor safety. And they have neither. Intrusive government operations never go away. The freedom is dead. Idiots and criminals will always flout legitimate laws. There goes safety.

This alarming, demeaning practice happens all across the country. Why then haven’t the Courts, those guardians of our freedom, addressed the issue? they have, and they wholly endorse the measures. The Courts are part of the government, if you recall. There is no legal recourse for the people.

So, what is to be done? The probable answer is “nothing.” Freedom is fading fast in the wreck of America. The idealistic answer is to write to your Sheriffs, Governors,and other elected officials to demand they halt such abuses of liberty. In Georgia you can reach Governor Nathan Deal at: http://gov.georgia.gov/webform/contact-governor-domestic-form or at (404) 656-1776. Just don’t expect a positive response. The communists seem to be winning here too.