Electronicenergysource.com
Awareness Thesis
"The Age Of Knowledge"
- Also Known As -
Violations Of The Constitution Of The United States
By The Federal Government Against The People.
(Implement 0001-0312231300)
[[Revised-202102261236H [13] ©
Author:
Staff Sergeant E-6 Clarence F. Wilson, US Army (Ret)
Forward:
This document is not an Anti-American writing. In writing it, I invoke my First Amendment rights of free speech. Should I be asked a question of which I do not wish to answer, I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights.
Being a retired U.S. Army Disabled Vietnam Veteran with over 20-years of unbroken service and awarded many Metals and Decorations during my service, I consider I am very patriotic and I again would gladly endanger my life to defend the Constitution of The United States of America, which represents the people of my country and me.
However, I am outraged with some of the conduct and adaptations our elected and appointed government officials have been using to condition us for violation - past, present, and future.
This document is the writing of which I feel compelled to write. I am driven with the feeling to speak my mind and hopefully awaken the populace to these facts. All statements within this thesis can be proven factual and nothing is stated that is assumed or only an idea unless there is food for thought comments. (Related “Food For Thought” items will be encased in square brackets) [xxx]
This document consists of many time frames to complete its construction in its present form and relating to past, present, and future happenings. Should a time frame be erroneously stated within a subject area it must be looked at as a happening, but not necessarily in chronological order. The subject matter is to be the focal point. Please keep in mind that this is a mosaic document placed together to solve a puzzle or give you the “Real Picture”.
All who wish to espouse a particular view omit facts, which will expose their sincerity. I would prefer all to become informed before spouting off. But it's only human nature to employ our selective memory when we have a view we wish to promote. Rather than attempt to cover all the facts, both pro and con.
This document will be one that is declared to be of this nature. I admit that I have applied this type of attack within this document too, but not to exempt any part of a subject, but to point out the violation or violations as a result. I will not necessarily tell you about everything I see going down the street, or what is down a side street. What I want you to know is what is at the End Of The Road. Danger!
I pray to the All-Mighty God that He guides my thoughts in the directions needed to awaken the populace to these violations and to “conditionings”; a movement within the government to strip away our rights. I pray that we might gain the knowledge we need early enough that we may save ourselves fore we have truly moved forward into the age of Industry, the age of Electronics and Computers and before us stands the Age Of Knowledge!
May God continue to shine His grace on America!
Purpose:
This thesis is a mosaic document designed in nature to help make all American citizens aware that the “Age of Knowledge” is upon us and we, as citizens of the United States of America must individually act now upon the principles discussed within this thesis. We must act now!
Delaying could just well be that prolog to a farce or tragedy our governmental forefather James Madison referred to which I will later reference in a quote. The very core of our constitutional rights; our God-given individuality has been violated and placed in jeopardy by our present and past representatives and administrators that make up our government.
Many topics will be mentioned within this thesis and each will show a relationship to the slow death as a society that we are suffering. We, as a society are being led into a possibility of total destruction of all we are, all we can be, and all that is, as a democratic civilization. All the principles our governmental forefathers laid down as the foundation for a government, by the people, of the people, and for the people are being eaten away by a cancerous infrastructure and freedom is its main target.
We, as a people are being violated personally! We are also being conditioned for further violations through changes in laws that are affecting our Constitution Rights. We are being conditioned by allowing these laws to be passed and enforced that tread even the slightest on so much as one of a citizen’s constitutional rights.
Subordinate laws are being written and enacted that affect our Basic Constitutional Rights. I get ticked-off when I read about or hear about what the Government is doing to us. To understand this thesis, all you have to do is go information seeking on the Internet for what is presently going on deep inside our government.
Some of these are discussed within this thesis and some are not. I will bring attention to what you do not see or hear on the radio or television, what you do not see in the newspapers.
Now when I spout out this next statement, all the media services will tell you that I lie. The news that the American public is exposed to is censored. There is so damn much of it that they have to censor it. Within the censoring, if it is not the top item(s) of the news media’s category, to draw viewers and readers to the publication or other media, the editor tells what is to be shown and what is not. [Censored News] . . . Now, the need to censor because of time frames to present this news, the media does not go really deep into a news item unless it draws viewers to the media. Another Sign of big business and money. So you and I are never presented personally with items of interest that can, in the long run, violate you and me to death. We lost Paul Harvey, so we don’t get the “Rest of the story”.
Without liberty, without true freedom, without just and clear laws, without placing the rights given each of us by God and the laws under the constitution is the same as giving us a death sentence.
Nathan Hale, for his treason against the King of England (while the 13 colonies fought for the exact principle of Hale’s fight), was noted for his heroic statement, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”! So they hanged him as a spy.
Liberty is extremely hard to obtain and even harder to hold on to. And way too expensive to have it threatened in the slightest way. It costs, from one cent to the ultimate price of death. I know this to be the truth from a personal aspect because I have lost so much of myself during my military service. I am lucky I am still alive today, but one of my dearest childhood friends and my very best buddy both lost their lives in Vietnam.
History:
History shows that all governments, societies, democracies, and governmental adaptations conceived by humans in the past, have ALL failed for one reason or another. We, as a society are following history’s path. The time is upon us, as a people, to change the direction we are presently going and to rectify destructive faults within and correct those that occurred in the past that affects the future.
Albert Einstein was known to be quoted quite often. Some say that he was so smart that he really didn't have very much common sense. I beg to differ with those individuals and you will see why when I refer to many of his quotes. I will also refer to quotes from other individuals where their statements might apply or be very close to what is mentioned.
I say that we are following the same path ALL other governments, societies, democracies, and governmental adaptations conceived by humans based on my knowledge of historical facts. I will, within this document, show references that I will hyperlink you to. At these hyperlinks you will find the basis for my stating one thing or another; perhaps both.
Quote: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
We must think ahead. We must confront the future today and do our best to correct those things of yesterday that affect our tomorrow. In doing so, we must recall our history and the history of other failed societies.
Yes, I said OTHER failed societies, because our society has fallen. Fallen not to the end, but has fallen to the brink of destruction. Our social structures of the closeness of family, protection of each other, getting and staying involved in activities that promote social harmony; all these things that make a society steadfast have all but disappeared from the American way of life.
Rome, The Great Roman Empire, was divided by ruling wealthy and laboring poor, fell to the ground as we are falling. Our laws have become as protection for the person(s) or business(es) that has money, (the wealthy) while our poor and laboring fill our jails and prisons or are found homeless. Those that "just manage" are in an everyday struggle to see ends meet financially. There seems never a time of fruitfulness. No time that allows the real laborer to relax from the strain of mind and body as to where the next money to pay the bills at the end of that week will come from. This is especially true should a misfortune fall upon the individual or the individual’s family. Big Business is killing the American labor force and destroying the American way of life.
Knowledge:
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both." -- James Madison
However, our present government is treating the populace like mushrooms. They are keeping us in the dark and feeding us bullshit. This fact, along with only a few other related subjects are explained within the many examples discussed within this document.
I’ve been working on this document for a long time and I have found this to be one of the simplest true statements of all time: “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know”. – Albert Einstein quote.
Signs:
Signs of the “Age Of Knowledge” are all around us and in general, we adjust to these changes in our lifestyles with little effort. The changes place an almost unnoticeable life force drain upon us, which is quite like those of aging. Something drastic occurs that attracts our attention; a happening, an incident, a crime, or a naturally occurring event, sparks us into a people. People which care and become interested in the signs and thus follow their happenings. Then too, sometimes these changes are so shuttle or hidden from us by those which represent us and administrate for us - our government. The first three words of the Constitution for the United States of America are: “We the People”.
References:
“The Internet - An extension of all our combined minds”.
Big Business and Labor:
Big business is not keeping our hard-earned dollars in America. They are sending them to other countries to buy cheap parts and mostly the cheaper labor. This places more and more Americans without fruitful jobs and this causes economical and social decay.
If Big Business wants to do that, there should taxation on all imported items that are so great that the funds from the taxation could take care of all the aged, the hungry, the homeless, the sick, education of our children, and further the education of those who deserve the chance for higher learning. There should be luxury taxation for those that want items which are not American made. This luxury tax should be so great that it would be cheaper to by American-made products.
The motto “Buy American” should be at the top of all our practices in daily life. We all should practice this activity in our everyday life and let it be for most in our thoughts. We should scorn all those individuals that buy products that are not American Made. Scorn harshly and in public as these are the individual that support Big Business abroad and cause their economic system to work for them. Big business robs and slaps us in the face every time one cent of American labor and product benefits leave America. Damn them!
[Must Add Covid-19 Data To Date] Unemployment rates at present are approximately 5.6% with a population of about 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.). At 5.6% unemployed, that means about 16.25 million people are out of work. I’ll bet that Big Business abroad employs 2 or 3 times that many people in third world countries for cheaper labor. What a farce. And two-faced politicians push for Big Business to have stock market gains by passing laws and Acts that crap on every one of us.
What would a big business do if we (The People) bought absolutely nothing but food items and bare necessities for three months? I believe they would crap in their pants and start paying attention to OUR needs just a little bit more. I’d even be willing to bet they would start to change their policies on where their products were being made and by whom. They might even start to be Americans again. As it stands now, they are nothing but leeches that thrive on the blood and sweat of the American populace. They are only interested in the American Green-Back Dollar and any other currency that they can get their money-grubbing paws on.
Many of our labor force work in job conditions that do not have any type of insurance coverage for injury, sickness, and especially a retirement program. Some work under conditions where there is no “workman’s compensation”; these are usually independent workers that cannot find any other jobs other than lawn or yard work such as can be found during “spring-cleaning” or raking leaves and cutting grass.
Handy-man work and helpers to handy-men are some of the most vulnerable individuals within our labor force. These individuals find work on their own that they can do right then because of the need to welfare themselves and their family because the employment agencies cannot find the proper employment. Or the employment agency is one of the rip-off agencies that require a percentage of their wages and almost always, all their over-time pay should they be able to acquire any. And/or the employer must pay that agency extra funds above the hired individuals' wages.
There should only be Federal and State Employment/Unemployment agencies as this will allow for more accurate rate calculations for our labor statistics. What is presented to us today under our present calculation system is plain out BS because the government cannot truly track these values because they have no baselines to start with nor accurate up-to-data feeds? Another farce to tell us we have a good economy. ..
Electronics Revolution:
During the last forty or so years we have seen extremely fast advancements in the electronics fields. Advances so fast the average human cannot begin to comprehend the scope and variety of these advancements. From small things, we take for granted like a cheap one-dollar calculator to ground-to-satellite and satellite to ground Internet, TV, and radio services. Cellular telephone services that use both repeater ground-to-ground and satellite technology.
Satellites with extremely advanced surveillance technologies aboard that allow the close watch of movement, heat divergence, weather and more accurate forecasts. Infra-red and other spectrums of the frequency ranges known to man, used to observe even those things that are not normally seen with the naked eye. Massive telescopes that we use to see our universe with clear vision and highly defined resolution.
The old days of imaginary technologies like Buck Rogers and ray-guns, Dick Tracy and wrist-watch bi-directional TVs, and God knows what all else is here. The Star-Wars project is a classic example of what the electronics revolution has made available to the human species. . Satellites with LASER equipment on board that can shoot down anything that is needed or wanted out of the skies with ray-gun type technology (LASER). To be able to pin point a ground target and destroy it with the on-board LASER equipment with deadly accuracy.
This type technology is feared the world over and the United States project to develop this type weapon superiority was strongly criticized by many to the countries of the United Nations and other countries.. As a result, the projects were placed on hold; supposedly . . . . .
Legalized Extortion:
Is Extortion Rights Granted To Big Business By The Government ? The answer is Yes !
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”) is a classic example and I will show you. Read on. . .
ATTENTION: A National Security Or Military Code Compromised Would Be Handled As Something Like This For Example:
"Security DTV Code Cracked. Security Violation of DTV Code Compromised. Code Must Not Be Used. Code Change."
Within minutes, in the Military, there would be a code change on everything that code was being used on. Thus Nothing Of Any Part Of That Code could be used again. - [Then heads would start to roll and the violator(s) would instantly be arrested on this end of the code where the initial compromise had taken place..] The enemy would not be arrested for breaking the code. It would be the careless or stupid or traitorous son-of a-bitch that caused the compromise. If the enemy got their hands on it and the compromise was due to their cracking the code, there would really be nothing to do, except to change the code and pray that information utilizing the code was not compromised. If that next code was also compromised, then still another code would be used to take its place within minutes.
DTV is THE Violator Of Their Own Copyright. Their Code Compromise has not been properly handle internally and their security breach corrected. The initial copyright states that the only critical flaw with Smart Card Technology is that if a code used in the Smart Card is compromised, the card is no longer a Smart Card, but becomes solely just another simple EEPROM.
Copyright Violation(s) Of Any Of The Granted Copyright Can Make The Grant Given Under The Copyright Laws void.
Example:
United States Patent 4,748,668
Shamir , et al. May 31, 1988
One of DTV’s patents claim the following:(a) Section 1 item (a) Selecting a modulus n which is the product of at least two secret primes;
[ The two SECRET primes no longer exist due to code compromise.]
(b) Section 40 item (b) Means for transmitting the numbers v.sub.j along with a signature of a trusted signature from the identifier to the verifier;
[ With a code compromise, no signature can be a trusted signature.]
(c) Under Description; Back Ground Of Invention it states:
(1) Authentication: A can prove to B that he is A, but someone else cannot prove to B that he is A. [ Again, With a code compromise, no signature can be a trusted signature, therefore Z (hacker) being someone else, can prove to B that he is A or any other entity needed.]
(2) Identification: A can prove to B that he is A, but B cannot prove to someone else that he is A [ Again, With a code compromise, no signature can be a trusted.]
(3) Signature: A can prove to B that he is A, but B cannot prove even to himself that he is A [ Again, with a code compromise, no signature can be a trusted one.]
(4) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: An unlimited number of users can join the system without degrading its performance, and it is not necessary to keep a list of all the valid users. Interaction with the smart cards will not enable verifiers to reproduce them, and even complete knowledge of the secret contents of all the cards issued by the center will not enable adversaries to create new identities or to modify existing identities. Since no information whatsoever is leaked during the interaction, the cards can last a lifetime regardless of how often they are used. [Again, With a code compromise, no signature can be trusted and any card can be made to look like any card the hacker can place his/her hands on. This allows the hacker to copy a valid subscriber’s card and for the system to acknowledge any card as if it was the original card within the equipment.] [Duh…. Again, and Again and Again . ….* * * With a code compromise, no signature can be a trusted and all cards can be used on any equipment to which it was designed and look like any and of all the others with that system. * * *
DirecTV admits that it doesn't have evidence that the owners of the equipment use it to tap into DirecTV's programs. = “Extortion”. Satellite TV giant DirecTV has sent ominous letters to an estimated 100,000 individuals, accusing them of purchasing "pirate access devices" and threatening to haul them into court for stealing television channels. The letters tell the unlucky recipients that the prospect of an expensive legal battle will go away if they pay up, usually to the tune of $3,500. Yet, in too many cases, the targets of the letters never intercepted DTVs signal; they're only guilty of owning smart card technology. This dragnet is catching innocent security professionals, hobbyists, and entrepreneurs. Without proof of a violation of law, DTVs unsubstantiated threats to sue are an abuse of the legal system. As if that's not bad enough, DirecTV has filed over 9,000+ lawsuits against purchasers of smart-card technology, employing an army of lawyers to squeeze even more costly settlements out of individuals nationwide. Ask your Members of Congress to initiate an investigation into DirecTV's misuse of the law and blatant disregard for the public's right to use technology.
Security architectures must be designed to put the computer owner's interests first, not to lock the owner into the plans of others. [The Rich]. The computer is another extension of a person’s mind and hands. The First Amendment cannot be violated concerning this or any other concern where the principles of the amendment apply. Under federal law (“DMCA”) it is a criminal offense to own the devices if the owner knows or has reason to know that the equipment can be used to unscramble encrypted satellite service. “Guilty” if they think or assume that under a law, you could think that you could commit a violation. [Confusing but accurate.]
For General Information Only:
The following sites are owned and operated by DTV as of 4/10/04 (Reference= ) (No Longer On Server)
access-
arracudatech.ca
axxessplus.ca
card-wizard.ca
card-
card-
dex-
dsscanuck.ca
dsscity.ca
dssdepot.ca
dss-
dssfiledump.ca
dss-
dss-
dss-
dss-
dss-
dsslounge.ca
dssna.ca
dss-
dss-pro.tk
dss-
dssproxy.ca
dss-stuff.ca
dss-
dss-
dsszone.ca
eqstuff.ca
globalcardprogrammers.ca
h3-electronics.ca
h3-
h3-
hackac4.ca
hackhu.ca
huexpress.ca
hufreeware.ca
imagelectronics.ca
infositeonline.ca
intertek.ca
jt-tek.ca
jt-
privatescript.ca
satansplayhouse.ca
satgroup.ca
smart-card-programmers.ca
smart-card-
smart-card-
testcardprogrammers.
test-haven.ca
test-
test-
test-
usacardcleaners.ca
usaiso.ca
whiteviper.ca
whitevipertech.ca
Although many of these Internet sites were violating the so called “Unconstitutional DMCA”, you can rest assured that a lot of them were taken over through extortion tactics by DirectTV, granted to them by the government.
Stay away from these sites unless you want to get a letter in the mail stating you owe $3500 to DTV for copyright violation under the DMCA for just looking at the site..
Additional information concerning DTV’s extortion tactics are sited in the following:
Court dismisses DirecTV whistleblower case
Source:
By John Leyden
Published Tuesday 1st June 2004 16:19 GMT
A California judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought against satellite TV giant DirecTV by a former worker.
The case revolves around DirecTV's controversial anti-piracy tactics. DirecTV is targeting consumers who used smart card programmers and other equipment to get free or expanded satellite TV service. Passive reception of DirecTV's satellite TV signals is difficult (if not impossible) to monitor. So DirecTV attempts to find 'cable pirates' by raiding suppliers of equipment that can be used in piracy and sending out threatening letters to everyone on their customer lists.
The letters accuse the recipients of violating anti-piracy laws in purchasing equipment like customizable smart card programmers, and demand cash payment of $3,500 or upwards under threat of far more costly legal action. DirecTV has sent out tens of thousands of these legal nasty grams since last year and filed lawsuits against over 9,000 people who've failed to respond. None of these cases have yet gone to trial.
Concerns about the crackdown have prompted consumer advocates to launch a website apprising crackdown targets of their legal rights. EFF says innocent people are settling with DirecTV for no other purpose than to avoid costly litigation, Security Focus reports.
John Fisher, a former police officer, resigned from DirecTV in October 2003 after working as a senior investigator with the company for just over a year. He claims he was effectively forced out because of his former employer's unethical tactics. Instead of acting up as a legitimate investigator tracking signal pirates he ended up "as little better than a 'bag man for the mob'", according to Fisher's March lawsuit. DirecTV knew that between five and 10 per cent of its targets were innocent, according to Fisher's suit. Through the case, Fisher sought unspecified damages and an end to DirecTV's tactics.
But a California Superior Court judge decided that Fisher's case interfered with DirecTV's right to petition government. The court therefore granted the DirecTV's application to dismiss the lawsuit citing California's "anti-SLAPP" statute. The decision is a legal set back against Fisher, who nonetheless continues to pursue a claim of unfair dismissal against DirecTV.
Fisher and his attorney Jeffrey Wilens have agreed to settle the wrongful dismissal claim through arbitration but are reserving the right to reinitiate legal action if this fails, reports Satellite industry news site SkyReport. ®
See and read The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”), also known as: DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
[[Page 112 STAT. 2860]]
Public Law 105-304
105th Congress
An Act
To amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Millennium Copyright Act''.
Download a copy of the ACT from these URLs - You will get the analyzed version from some of the Internet Address::
(PDF Format)
[Here : Too damn many to choose from… do this… Get on the Internet and use this for your search: for The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
You will find that almost everyone of them analyzes the thing..
I cannot, you cannot, our intellectuals cannot, no one can experiment in a new technology, device, theory, ie., etc, that one is interested. If we cannot develop something completely on our own, and if we even think about trying to play with or experiment with anything that any one has a copyright granted to them for. We could be brought into a civil suit by that individual or company and if found guilty by a judge, jury or arbitration, be made to pay compensation to the copyright holder. Plus, we could also be fined and sentenced by the U.S. Government for violating just about any part of that ACT,
A law, a very unclear and gray law. because of its type of written structure and blanket coverage the ACT uses, it has been claimed by many intellectual institutions to be unconstitutional. They claim it to be so gray and wishy-washy that it should be entirely rewritten and be sent through the legislative system again. It should be written by or with the assistance of Intellectuals and not solely Politicians.
The ACT has sent the signs to everyone. Another right lost to a violation of our First Amendment based on money. And you don’t even have to try to protect your copyrighted item from compromise, just rely on a very controversial law and load down our exhausted judicial system with cases where the people cannot afford to hire expensive lawyers. Just wait until the hackers break the Smart Card codes for cards such as The American Express Smart Card. Cellular telephones have already fallen victim to the hackers, also Play Stations, X-Box and the rest of the family of encoded devices. Software with control numbers to make it work after paying the copyright holders their frees and getting the KEYs (code) to the door to use the software are nothing to most hackers. [ I laugh at just the thought. No Smart Card Technology is safe. If “MAN” creates something with his knowledge, another “MAN” can destroy it or break its security with his knowledge.] It is the curse of Knowledge without Wisdom that we suffer.
Ol’ Albert Einstein was to have said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge, for knowledge is limited while imagination embraces the entire world.” and “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”Our government has no imagination and is not limited with the difference of being genius.
Want to see some Hacker action ? Use search words in you searches like these individually:
cracks, serials, text, textfiles, MSD, passwords, hacks, crackers, and a lot you can just imagine. You will be shocked at your Hacking abilities in no time if you read and follow their instructions.
If you tried those words in a search, you might have violated part of the DMCA because to thought that you could find some good SECRETS… And you can if you continue along that path. You can find more knowledge that you know what to no with. The important part of knowledge is that you have to know what to do with it and there starts Wisdom. The Internet is a place where evil can and will over-rule good because it was devised and created by MAN, humans for human reasons. No government will ever be able to control it or police it as long as MAN is using it. And laws that limit the imagination of the mind will cause America’s Intellectuals to have limits and restraints place on them. It is not that they will reach their limits that is the issue; the issue is that they will not be allowed to reach their limits because their constitutional rights will have been violated. America’s greatest advantage over the rest of the world has always been its edge on technology. It is this edge that makes America strong and self-supporting, along with free enterprise; that ability to out do the other guy or better an idea, to be able to keep up with the Jones down the street and if you are smart enough, out do them so you’ll have them try to out do you. Laws like the DMCA and the FTA (Fair Trade Agreement) will not allow America to keep a sharp edge on technology to protect itself from the rest of the world and will choke this society to death while our swords rust and become dull. .If all that was complicated, then think about this:
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. The one that understands binary, and the one that does not.
More Added Or Modified Attempts To Bind The American Public
’Patriot Act II: Read about the Justice Departments attempt to grab sweeping new powers. The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information.
’The Creation of an American Gestapo ! Hitler's Special Police ! To Be In AMERICA ! If you want America to remain the land of the FREE you owe it to yourself and your family to read this. Before it's too late ..................
Dated Feb 04, 2004
Well, Attorney General Ashcroft is trying to flush the bill of rights with a sequel to the USA Patriot Act. If passed this would be the first time in US history that secret arrests would be specifically permitted under American rule of law. It also allows others to strip your citizenship by the inference of conduct. Just who gets to make that decision for you? Pray its not the same Ashcroft who has accused his critics of " (scaring) peace loving people with phantoms of lost liberty". So if you were to send a check for the legal activities of an organization and, unbeknownst to you, it has been labeled as a terrorist group, then you could end up deported, as a person without a country. Deported American citizens are not "Phantoms of lost liberty."
If you want America to remain the land of the FREE you owe it to yourself and your family to read this. Before it's too late..................
You can download the entire 12 MB The draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 at:
The Key To America is MONEY !
[[Remember: Election day grows closer and closer, so remember to go to the poll and vote.
Vote for the CROOK of your choice, but VOTE !]]
1. [The rich get richer and the poor get poorer !]
2. [The rich get richer and the poor get poorer !]
3. [The rich get richer and the poor get poorer !]
4. [The rich get richer and the poor get poorer !] [search the phrase . . . and so on and so on and so on.. .
Rats Eat Rats : TiVo sues EchoStar over DVR features
Posted by Clumppy on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:50 AM
TiVo, the San Jose company that pioneered digital video recording for television, Monday sued EchoStar, the parent company of satellite TV provider Dish Network, alleging patent infringement of specific DVR features.
Dish Network's DVR is one of the biggest competitors to TiVo's service. Unlike cable-TV providers, which are just starting to launch DVR services in select markets, Dish Network has been offering scaled-down digital recording features for about as long as TiVo.
The suit, filed in federal district court in Texas, alleges that EchoStar's DVR infringes TiVo's ``Time Warp'' patent, which includes the method used to allow viewers to record one program while watching another and the storage format that supports advanced ``TrickPlay'' capabilities such as pausing live television, rewinding and slow motion.
``We take great pride in the fact that TiVo has created and developed the technology that revolutionizes the way people watch television,'' TiVo Chief Executive Mike Ramsay said in a statement. ``We've invested in building a comprehensive patent portfolio to protect our intellectual property and as the DVR category grows, we will be aggressive in protecting those assets.''
Steve Caulk, spokesman for Colorado-based EchoStar, said the company had not seen the suit and declined comment.
DirecTV, Dish Network's primary competitor for satellite TV services, has a partnership with TiVo and offers the service to its customers.
Both TiVo and DishNetwork marked their millionth DVR subscriber milestones late last year.
1st Amendment Violations - Trampling Religion
Endorsing a religion or establishing a religion by the Government is prevented in the written structure of the Constitution. However, religion is a "belief"; a movement within the being that drives it to seek "something better or different" than that which it lives. Religion is usually referenced to the seeking of the Creator; (however you conceive him or her or it to be); Nature’s God and thus, with the sincere acknowledgment to the Creator as being Devine, there is hope for a continuation of life after death and in paradise.
Our Constitution was conceived with the concept that there was a Creator; Is a Creator; and shall always be a Creator who is referenced to as God in every so many of our government's stones to the Constitution’s foundation and that with the Creators grace and guidance, that the originating Fathers of this great nation was granted the ability to create a Government of the People, by the People and for the People and prayed that it shall endure forever. This matter and all matters covered by the first ten (10) amendments to the Constitution should not be given to the authority of the government structure and that especially to the representatives, but MUST be maintained solely by the People. Elected officials cannot justly speak for the people as a majority strictly because these are of matter of a personal nature and not those of a political nature.
Any Administration that attempts to change any item(s) within the “Bill Of Rights”, or any sub-law affecting the Basic Amendment(s) should not have these powers invested in them. Thus, these matters concerning Amendments to the Constitution; especially Amendment Numbers 1 through 10, the government must present these wanted changes to the American Public for a popular vote and cannot be voted on and made into an authorized change by the Congress, The President or Judge(s).Is it not true that one vote can make the difference with any cause ? Yes. This fact is the one and only fact that we must consider. Realize the fact that you and I are ONE as a People and ONE as an individual. Personally, I just could not allow a government representative to vouch for my personal answer to The Devine, regardless as to what the issue(s) happen to be, especially if it is “ME” (The Individual).These areas of needing a popular vote to make any changes are listed below, as they are the most important entries into our Constitution. They are our only personal shields against direct and personal attacks against or directed against us as individuals.
The Amendments are:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
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.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; 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 defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
War On Drugs:
Governmental profitable and is being waged with all the gusto our present representatives and administrators can compile. {Sounds repetitive; it is and as long as a war is profitable, the government will back it.]
I'm going to be critical of our war-like approach to the drug problem. But that doesn't mean that I think drugs are good. I don't. I don't think we can win the "war on drugs," but that doesn't mean we can't be a lot more effective in dealing with the drug problem. Basically, we have to manage the drug problem -- that is, the distribution has to be regulated and policed and subject to the forces of law and order.
The war on drugs is a war on all of us. Who is the enemy in the war on drugs? It is not the drugs because the drugs are mere chemicals. We have a war on drugs no more than we have a war on carbon dioxide.
In the eyes of the government, the obvious enemy is everyone who uses illegal drugs, and everyone who gives them aid and comfort. Of course, the obvious enemy includes everyone who buys drugs, who sells drugs, who transports drugs, who grows marijuana; although marijuana is a God given herb many governments have damned it. Especially through Trade Agreements and other Political Agreements to outlaw things of nature just to be able to trade.
But there are hidden enemies. The hidden enemy is every person not actively working to purge drug users from our society. The hidden enemies include the employers of people who may use drugs if the employer fails to adopt steps to root out drug users; even if employees are competent and perform well.
The hidden enemy is every parent of a drug user who fails to turn their child over to the police or fails to use every means to coerce their child into stopping his or her drug use.
The hidden enemy is every lawyer who represents a person accused of violating the drug law.
The hidden enemy is everyone who makes or exhibits a motion picture that makes jokes about drug use. The hidden enemy is every merchant who sells cigarette rolling papers, or any product that can be turned into drug paraphernalia. The enemy hidden is every radio station that plays rock 'n' roll from any time period which, in nature, exploits any type drug or its use..
The hidden enemy is our next-door neighbor, our bowling buddy or golfing partner, our mail carrier, our secretary, our spouse. We are the government's hidden enemy.
When you have a hidden enemy, you need to use extremely powerful weapons. As in Vietnam, when you can't find the hidden enemy, sometimes weapons are used that injure the innocent. A foundation of our system of justice is that it is to protect the innocent. That foundation, which is to protect the innocent has been filled by the termites of the war on drugs.
Let's examine the weapons being used by the government against its enemies in the war on drugs and examine the casualty list.
It is my thesis that among the most tragic casualties in the "war on drugs" are our constitutional liberties. To start, let's go through the Bill of Rights in the Constitution one-by-one to see how they have been affected by the war on drugs.
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." "What does the First Amendment have to do with drugs?" you ask.
I want to bring two examples to your attention: the first is the decision of the United States Supreme Court, Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (--U.S.--, 110 S.Ct. 1595, No. 88-1213, April 17, 1990). In that case two Native Americans were discharged from employment in the drug treatment program for which they worked because they used peyote as part of their participation in the religious practices of the Native American Church. Peyote is the sacrament in that church. They applied for unemployment benefits after they were fired, and the State of Oregon turned them down. The Oregon Supreme Court, however, found that as participants in the Native American Church they had a right to use peyote, and said they were entitled to benefits.
But the Oregon Attorney General, Dave Frohnmeyer, Republican candidate for Governor, saw the case differently. In his view, the war on drugs can not tolerate drug use. If a drug treatment program demands a "drug-free" staff, Native Americans who worship with their sacrament ought to be fired. And an appropriate government weapon in the war on drugs is to deny such people unemployment benefits.
Notwithstanding well settled Supreme Court precedents that denial of these benefits impermissibly restricts the free exercise of religion, Attorney General/gubernatorial candidate Frohnmeyer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is important to stress that peyote is the sacrament in the Native American Church -- it is used by over 250,000 Native American worshippers. They don't consider it a drug anymore than Catholics think of communion wine as a drug, or as a refreshing beverage.
The Supreme Court, 5 to 4, reversed the Oregon Supreme Court, and in the process threw out the long-standing doctrine that a State's burden upon the free exercise of religion can only be justified by a State "compelling interest" that cannot be served by less restrictive means (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)). Consider the background: the respondents were never prosecuted by Oregon for their use of peyote. There is no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by the religious use of peyote. 23 States and the Federal government exempt the religious use of peyote from the Controlled Substances Act. Indians who use peyote as part of the Native American Church are less likely to abuse drugs or be alcoholic than those who do not.
Here is a case where use of a religious sacrament, because it has been classified by law enforcement authorities as a drug, but nevertheless an essential component of the way in which people worship and have worshipped for hundreds of years, became the basis for denying unemployment benefits. From the perspective of the international, multi-billion dollar war on drugs, this case was totally insignificant. Unlike crack or heroin, the use of peyote is not destroying people, their families, or cities like New York, or nations like Colombia.
Most importantly, this case was purely a symbolic battlefield in the war on drugs. Yet this totally insignificant drug case became the occasion for restricting the religious freedom of all Americans by narrowing the applicability of the Free Exercise clause. Justice Blackmun wrote ironically in his dissent, "One hopes that the Court is aware of the consequences, and that its result is not a product of overreaction to the serious problems the country's drug crisis has generated." (Dissenting Slip Opinion at 2.)
Justice Blackmun put his finger on the problem: this trashing of the Free Exercise of Religion was purely an overreaction to the drug problem, and the Bill of Rights was a casualty. As we will see, this result is hardly new.
Let's look at another way in which the First Amendment is being undermined by the war on drugs -- in this instance, the freedom of the press. This summer, a magazine about drugs and the drug culture -- High Times -- is being investigated by the U.S. Attorney in Louisiana for aiding and abetting the illegal cultivation of marijuana. The magazine prints a column called "Ask Ed" that gives tips on improving marijuana cultivation. High Times is also being investigated for printing advertisements for "grow lights," irrigation equipment that can be used for growing, among other plants, marijuana, and an advertisement for "The Seed Bank", a business in the Netherlands that would mail seeds for growing marijuana.
This investigation is not an obscenity case. This is not an investigation of an "incitement to imminent lawless action" under Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444 (1969)). This is an old-fashioned threat of prosecution for seditious writing. This harks back to the dark days of the 1918 Sedition Act and the prosecution of filmmaker Robert Goldstein, sentenced to 10 years in prison for his unbecoming portrayal of the British (then U.S. wartime allies) in a film about the American Revolution, and the conviction of Eugene Debs for criticizing Teddy Roosevelt's support of World War I.
Once again, in the charged atmosphere of war, the fundamental freedom of press is endangered.
The second amendment says, "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." Gun control advocates argue that this amendment does not guarantee an individual right. (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983), and U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).) However, having been responsible for Federal gun control legislation between 1981 and 1989 and having read many of the law review articles on the origins and meaning of the Second Amendment (See e.g. Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D., THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED: THE EVOLUTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (University of New Mexico Press 1984); To Keep and Bear Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment, 1787 - 1791, 10 Northern Kentucky Law Review 13-39 (1982) reprinted in 131 CONG. REC., 99th Cong., 1st Sess., S9105-9111, July 9, 1985); The Right to Bear Arms in the First State Bills of Rights, 10 VERMONT LAW REVIEW 255-320 (1985).), I think there is an individual right to keep and bear some arms. There are scores of millions of Americans who possess a .22 rifle for target practice, a handgun for personal or family protection, or a shotgun for hunting. Perhaps there are a few such Americans in this reading today. I think that such firearms possession is protected by the Second Amendment.
But the extremism of the war on drugs manages to infringe on that right. If, after surgery let's say, you use your wife's Valium or your husband's pain medication, and the prescription was not issued to you, you are an unlawful user of drugs. If you also happen to be exercising your Second Amendment rights and possess a firearm in your closet or gun cabinet, your possession of the firearm makes you, at that moment, a Federal felon subject to a ten-year sentence and a quarter million dollar fine (18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2)). This penalty also applies to the millions of American gun owners who use marijuana, even those who live in states for which the penalty for possessing marijuana is a minor civil offense as it is in many liberal states. In many states, if you receive a shotgun for Christmas and accept it, having twice been convicted of possession of marijuana or another drug, you are subject to a mandatory five years in prison (18 U.S.C. 924(c) and 21 U.S.C. 844(a)).
The politically manufactured fear (See Kaplan, MARIJUANA -- THE NEW PROHIBITION, (1970) 91-146, and materials cited therein.) of the blood-thirsty maniac killer of "Reefer Madness," led Congress to prohibit any person who was addicted to or used illegal drugs from receiving a firearm. The blunderbuss weapon of an overbroad law was created. Thus, millions of Americans, whose illegal use of drugs is a minor or technical violation, are felons and potential casualties because of their exercise of Second Amendment right to possess firearms.
Incidentally, common sense is also a casualty in the war on drugs. Prison is one place we don't want convicts to have firearms. In 1984, a ten-year prison term was established for possessing or bringing a firearm or bomb into a Federal prison. In 1988, Senator Phil Gramm of Texas insisted that the penalty for bringing heroin, cocaine or LSD into prison be raised from 3 years to 20 years. Now possession of drugs in prison is twice as serious as possessing a firearm or a bomb, rocket or grenade. When the stupidity of this amendment was pointed out, the Senator's counsel insisted that it was Gramm's contribution to the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act and it had to be in the bill. (18 U.S.C. 1791(b)(1); P.L. 100-690, sec. 6468(a), (b).
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 Laws Trample Tenants Rights Who Live In Public Housing
The Supreme Court upheld the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The act forces public housing renters to surrender civil protections. America’s anti-drug laws destroy more democratic freedoms. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act directs public housing officials to include anti-drug abuse provisions in their leases. Those leases gives public housing officials the authority to evict a tenant if any member of their household, any guests or person under their control engages in criminal activity or drug related activity anywhere, whether or not it’s on housing grounds. The government defines anybody the tenant allows through the door as being under their control. Housing officials can evict them even if they didn’t know about the illegal activity or had reason to know about it. Under those conditions, the housing officials could legally evict a tenant for what a pizza delivery person did somewhere else at another time. They say that they won’t abuse those powers that way. Maybe they won’t. Nevertheless, the point is that in a free society government officials should not have those unrestricted powers over citizens’ freedom and well-being.Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the Court’s opinion. “Regardless of knowledge, a tenant who cannot control drug crime, or other criminal activities by a household member which threaten health or safety of other residents, is a threat to other residents and the project. With drugs leading to murders, muggings, and other forms of violence against tenants . . . it was reasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions in order to provide public and other federally assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe and free from illegal drugs.”One does not expect to hear that kind of an opinion from the Supreme Court of a democratic nation. Rehnquist presumes a situation where tenants know nothing about an illegal activity, but still he obligates them to prevent it happening. How could they do that? Even in religion, people don’t express a belief that their god controls everything without also believing that it knows everything. Chief Justice Rehnquist demands that tenants control other people’s activities without knowledge. I might understand the Court’s opinion if it included an implied responsibility or fault because of a parental relationship. However, the Rehnquist opinion upholds no-fault government evictions. No-fault means those tenants have no direct, indirect, assumed or implied responsibility for criminal or illegal drug activity. Therefore, the Court approves tyrannical government action that punishes no-fault tenants merely to accomplish zero tolerance anti-drug goals. Notice that Rehnquist also applies those no-fault eviction provisions to “other federally assisted low-income housing.” In the future, some government officials may use those words to include people with government housing vouchers or any household living in a house built with government assistance. Justice Rehnquist said this was not a situation where the government attempts to criminally punish or civilly regulate members of the general population. Instead, the government acts as a landlord enforcing a lease clause that tenants agree to.
Justice Rehnquist describes those lease arrangement as if they were contracts between equals. Factually, they are one-sided acts of coercion by powerful United States government officials. The government gives those low-income citizens the choice of forfeiting their constitutional rights or forfeiting their chance for housing. That is hardly the simple act of a landlord enforcing a lease.
America does not learn from history. It is a shame that the Supreme Court supports questionable anti-drug abuse government policy that once again denies equal protection under the law to a class of citizens.
Plessey v Ferguson was a previous Supreme Court decision of this nature. It endorsed racial segregation laws and destroyed a group’s civil protections. Public housing officials said they could not protect public housing residents from drug dealers without a zero tolerance policy that authorizes no-fault evictions. Congress should have told them our constitution does not allow that kind of a solution. Instead, it passed legislation that took away public housing tenants’ right to stay in their homes by proving themselves innocent of wrongdoing. The international community will ask the question that Congress didn’t. Why does a democratic society need to take away innocent citizens civil protections to make an anti-drug policy work? Chief Justice Rehnquist’s artful words may convince America’s anti-drug groups that those leases don’t trample on tenants’ civil rights. However, the international community will hear them as America’s admission that its democratic protections work only for rich and powerful people. Probably they’ll wonder how America’s democracy is different from their tyrannical government that denies their human rights. This just goes to show another knock against doing anything positive on the War on Poverty. The Third Amendment prohibits in time of peace the quartering of soldiers in any house. You recall, of course, that in the 18th century the King of England quartered soldiers in homes to keep an eye on the unruly, disloyal colonists. About all the King had were soldiers -- he had few other officials to police the behavior of citizens. Police as we know them today were not invented until the 19th century. Well, today government mandated urine testing is the contemporary equivalent of quartering troops in homes. The disloyal person who smokes marijuana in his home Saturday night while watching a home video, who is urine tested by government order on Tuesday, suffers the same degrading, invasive surveillance as if the King's soldier were sitting there in the living room monitoring the citizen's private activity.
Now the government uses infra red cameras in military satellites designed to find the hot engines of enemy vehicles moving at night to look over houses in America to find those that show up as excessively warm. This evidence is used for obtaining records of electricity use to see if someone might be growing something indoors that he or she shouldn't be. Now instead of merely stationing soldiers in homes, the war on drugs uses "Buck Rogers" weapons -- the technology of 21st century warfare - to look right through the ceiling into our homes. The privacy from military surveillance embodied and the third amendment is another casualty.
The Fourth Amendment states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Then the amendment spells out the procedure for issuing warrants. Every member of this audience who practices criminal law knows that every interpretation of this amendment that ever extended the "right of the people to be secure" has been reversed in the 18 years since President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. From the first days of the war on drugs, new exceptions to the warrant requirements, to the probable cause requirements, to the particularity requirements, have been created -- and almost all of these have been in drug cases. Those of you who do not practice criminal law, who studied criminal procedure in law school ten or fifteen years ago would be shocked. Lead cases you knew such as Aguilar v. Texas (378 U.S. 108 (1964)), and Spinelli v. U.S. (393 U.S. 410 (1969)), are gone, overruled in drug cases, rationalized by the exigencies of the war on drugs. (See e.g. Wisotsky, Exposing the War on Cocaine: The Futility and Destructiveness of Prohibition, 1983 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW 1305, 1418-1420.)
The Fourth Amendment has been so watered down that the search of a person for evidence of drug use -- without any evidence of drug use, without any individualized suspicion -- is, in the words of Justice Scalia, "a kind of immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use." (National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384 (No. 86-1879, March 21, 1989)).
By this time, you must be wondering if the “This man’s a nut and are helping some radicals who cooked up this inflammatory title, “The Age Of Knowledge” to get drugs approved. No…I don’t want any drugs that man has created to be approved, nor do I see a retreat against the right of a person to use a God given plant as he wishes. The hard man-made derivatives, extracts and concentrations of God’s creations and man-made chemical mixtures; synthesized chemical mixtures and the like must be enacted upon as these are human killers. Are you saying right now; Peyote, Marijuana, Poppies, Poppy Seeds, Banana Peelings, Roots of Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus) Betel Nut(Areca catechu), Canary Island broom (Genista canariensis), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) and hundreds of other plants and herbs; created by God should be on the drug hit list? All the items I have mentioned can get you “HIGH” and are drugs. Wouldn’t it be stupid to to put Poppy Seeds on the War on Drugs hit lists?… Eating too many of the bread rolls sprinkled with the seeds from poppies will cause you to test positive on a drug test ! Well here’s a hit list that deserves hitting hard. Look who was making “Crack Cocaine” and it was photographed !
- - USA Today, on November 15, 1989 entitled its lead cover story "The War on Drugs-
-Are Our Rights on the Line?" On the cover was a photograph of the Broward County, Florida Sheriff manufacturing crack cocaine to sell in stings of drug buyers. The sub headline is "Some Worry Police Out of Control." The story begins, "As the war on drugs intensifies, there is growing concern that the battle is claiming an unintended victim, our Constitutional rights. Emboldened by recent Supreme Court rulings, police across the U.S.A. are adopting aggressive tactics including neighborhood sweeps, no-knock searches, reverse stings and property seizures. 'I've lived through a lot of crime crises but we've never gone out of control like this,' says University of Michigan law professor Yale Kamisar, an expert on police searches."
“In Detroit, police raided a food market in a drug neighborhood, held the owner and seized his profits after dogs sniffed cocaine on three one dollar bills in his cash register. Quoting Denver Federal Judge Richard Matsch, a Nixon appointee, 'I wonder where the United States is headed. My concern is that the real victim of the war on drugs might be the Constitutional rights of the American people.'"Could this be the prolog to a farce or a tragedy ? Or is it just another way that the law makers and the law enforcement people can sneak above the law?
The Fourth Amendment, in its requirement that warrants "particularly describe" the place to be searched and the objects of the search requires that the information that sustains a search be recent, Rugendorf v. U.S. (376 U.S. 528 (1964)), Sgro v. U.S. (287 U.S. 206 (1932)). If an informant tells a police officer, "You know, it seems to me that last winter I remember that Joe had some marijuana on the table in his living room," it is not permissible to rely on that information as the basis for a search today to find marijuana.
Now consider the case reported in the article in USA Today, from Hudson, New Hampshire. At 5:00 a.m., August 3, 1989, police came to the home of Bruce Lavoie, 34, a machinist with a wife and three children. Without announcing themselves and without evidence that Lavoie might be armed, police smashed the door with a battering ram. Police had a search warrant based in part on an informant's tip that was 20 months old. "As he rose from his bed, apparently resisting the intruders, Mr. Lavoie was fatally shot as his son watched. A single marijuana cigarette was found."
The casualties are not just abstractions, they have children, now orphans, who will never feel their father's hugs again, all innocent victims of the war on drugs. Incidentally, pickets later defending the police use of deadly force carried signs reading, "Druggies have no rights.".
The Fifth Amendment sets forth many rights and procedures including the prohibition against depriving any person of "life, liberty or, property, without due process of law." In the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, Congress created a scheme of mandatory sentences in drug cases. Two levels of mandatory sentences were set forth for transactions in quantities of drugs greater than certain threshold quantities which was intended to give U.S. Attorneys the direction to focus on the highest level traffickers, and not waste time on the small fry. Unfortunately the enacted thresholds, as watered down by the Senate and in conference, are no longer based on the realities of the drug marketplace. They were adopted without consideration of their effect in sentencing real defendants, without consideration of the effect on prison populations, and without study of their potential effectiveness in deterring drug trafficking or drug use.
Now those mandatory penalties are used to coerce plea bargains. They give prosecutors the power to say, "Here's your choice: I can charge you with this offense which carries a mandatory sentence. If you go to trial and you lose, you will get a mandatory 10 years without parole up to life imprisonment for a first offense (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). (Congress specifically prohibited parole in these kinds of cases.) Alternatively, if you plead guilty to this lesser included offense which only carries a maximum of 20 years, cooperate with us by becoming an informant for us, we'll recommend a lower sentence in the guidelines such as five years or something like that (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C)."
Very simply, faced with that kind of choice, a guilty pleas is coerced, and the fifth amendment protection against denial of due process of law is lost.
Let's think of another example of the erosion of the fifth amendment protection. Due process in criminal cases includes the presumption of innocence, In re Winship (397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)). However, in drug cases, Congress granted to the government the power to seize the property of suspects in advance of trial. Indeed, in advance of indictment (21 U.S.C. 853(e)).
CRIMINAL RESOURCE MANUAL
Another way in which due process is denied and the accused are unable to get a fair trial in some drug cases is by means of the "megatrial." Under the continuing criminal enterprise section of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848) and RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (18 U.S.C. 1961), there are monstrous trials, in which a score of defendants are tried together in dozens of counts of indictments alleging hundreds of different acts. Former Chief Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York in his opinion in U.S. v. Gallo spelled out how putting many defendants together in a "megatrial" undermines the presumption of innocence (National Law Journal, Dec. 7, 1988 at 13). If the government accuses twenty Italian-American men with being members of an organized crime family and requires them to sit together at the same table in a courtroom for half a year and presents a continuous stream of testimony about conversations between and about Italian surnamed citizens, what jury isn't going to believe that they are all members of the "Mafia?" Even when the evidence only applies to a few defendants, the innocent defendants are the victims of "spillover prejudice."
Another megatrial, the "Pizza Connection" heroin trial (U.S.v. Badalamenti) in New York, lasted over 17 months. There were something like 21 defendants. The name of one defendant was not mentioned in the evidence or testimony until six months had elapsed. How does someone defend oneself in a megatrial? How can a jury process evidence in a complex trial that takes 17 months and sort the truth from the lies in dozens of counts? How can due process of law be said to exist in that situation? Yet these abuses are being tolerated in the prosecution of the war on drugs. The casualties include thousands of accused (including some who are innocent) with good defenses, who rightly feared that the risk of conviction coupled with mandatory penalties made a negotiated guilty plea look more attractive.
The Sixth Amendment, among many specific rights, guarantees that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Yet even such a fundamental right is under attack by the government and the courts in the course of the war on drugs. In U.S. v. Morrison (449 U.S. 361 (1981)), Drug Enforcement Administration special agents knowingly met with the defendant, without counsel being present, to denigrate counsel's ability and threaten conviction, thus invading and undermining the lawyer-client relationship. Yet the Supreme Court said a sixth amendment violation could not be established without a "showing of prejudice" to the outcome (in effect requiring the defendant to lose) -- thus weakening the protection of an individual's right to counsel.
Congress has also joined the assault on the right to counsel It gave prosecutors the power to seize the fees of the attorneys who represent the accused in drug cases. Justice Blackmun in describing this law said "Had it been Congress' express aim to undermine the adversary system as we know it, it could hardly have found a better engine of destruction than attorney's-fee forfeiture." Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. U.S. (dissenting opinion, 109 S.Ct. 2667, 2674 (1989)).
In order to seize those fees, the government has begun to issue subpoenas to defense attorneys about their fees. This forces the defense attorney to become a witness in the government's forfeiture case, and forces the attorney to withdraw as counsel. This has been found to give the government the ability to eliminate highly competent counsel from trying certain cases.
Another frightening example is that the government is demanding and attempting to force attorneys to provide it with evidence against their clients in circumstances rationalized by the war on drugs, but which involve all types of cases.
This is the background: under the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act of 1970 (also known as the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.), if you went to a bank and made a $10,000 or larger cash transaction, the bank had to report that transaction to the Treasury Department. But if you bought a large ticket item like a car and paid cash, that did not have to be reported to Treasury. Now the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26U.S.C. 6050I) requires all such cash transactions to be reported to IRS. It enables the government to get intelligence about people who buy a Mercedes-Benz with $55,000 in cash. Then the government specifically applied this reporting requirement to criminal defense lawyers. The special tax return under this section requires extensive detailing of who the customer is and the nature of the transaction. Look at how this works for lawyers and their prospective clients.
Let's assume that you believe that you may be under surveillance or investigation by the government. You keep hearing mysterious clicks on your telephone, and you think you are being followed. You go to a famous criminal defense attorney for advice and possible representation, and she wants $10,000, by no means an unheard of fee. You borrow a few thousands dollars from three or four close friends and relatives, you pawn your stereo, and pay the attorney the $10,000 in cash you've collected. The attorney however sends the required form to the Internal Revenue Service about you. You haven't been indicted. You don't even know if you're being investigated. Your attorney sends government investigators a form saying, "My name is Mary Smith, famous criminal defense lawyer. I've just been retained by Mr. Jones, who paid me $10,000 in cash to represent him."
Does anybody doubt that lights and bells will go off at the IRS when that report comes in? Of course they will. If there is no investigation pending on Mr. Jones, IRS or another Federal agency will put an agent on him right away. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (sec. 7601(b)) created a major exception to the usual rule of confidentiality of income tax information to permit the return filed under 26 U.S.C. 6050I to be turned over to any Federal law enforcement agency (26 U.S.C. 6103(i)(8)). How can the traditional protection of counsel of choice and the right to have counsel continue to exist if counsel are put in the position of becoming informants against their own clients?
The Washington Post reported on November 15, 1989, that nine hundred letters had been sent to criminal defense lawyers around the country by IRS saying, "We want more information about your clients." Quite justifiably, criminal defense lawyers are in an uproar -- but so should everyone who values the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The war on drugs has also become the pretext for an assault on the criminal defense bar itself. Sentencing of Federal defendants is pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, but a judge may impose a sentence lower than the stated guidelines by stating the reasons. However, a court can impose a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum sentence (which Congress has created almost exclusively for drug cases) only upon the motion of the prosecutor that the defendant provided "substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense." (18 U.S.C. 3553 (e)).
Consider the temptation upon the defendant awaiting sentence in such a drug case to find somebody, anybody, who they can inform against, in order to induce the prosecutor to move for a sentence reduction below the mandatory 5, 10 or 20 years. In fact, many defendants are secretly encouraged by the government to attempt to incriminate their own defense counsel
The Seventh Amendment guarantees that "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." If you think about it a second, this right is essential for protecting other rights. If you want to bring a Federal civil rights case, for example, you have a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. If you are the victim of an environmental hazard, or product liability, or any kind of case in which you have been harmed, you have a guaranteed opportunity to sue.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that criminal trials must be "speedy," consequently they have priority over almost every other matter. Recently a Federal Magistrate in Los Angeles stated that in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the volume of drug cases is so great the judges are concerned that soon they will be unable to try any civil cases. The number of attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's criminal division has just been doubled which promises a new influx of drug cases, but few new judgeships are being created. The Supreme Court of Vermont declared a six month moratorium on all civil jury trials. (Administrative Directive #17, "Temporary Postponement of Civil Jury Trials." January Term, 1990. Signed by all 5 justices on January 11, 1990, effective January 22, 1990. All civil jury trials for which jurors have not been drawn are postponed until after July 1, 1990. The moratorium was amended on March 28, 1990 when it appeared that the legislature would appropriate additional funds.) Many other federal and State courts are in a similar bind.
How can your right to a civil jury trial -- any kind of civil litigation -- be maintained if the docket is jammed with drug cases? Obviously, that right is lost.
The Eighth Amendment guarantees that "Excessive bail shall not be required,...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." In 1984, in the Comprehensive Bail Reform Act, the Congress said that in most felonious drug cases (see 21 U.S.C. 841(b)), there is a rebuttable presumption that defendants are dangerous to the community and can be held without bail (18 U.S.C. 3142(e)). Those provisions are being used throughout the federal court system to detain accused persons before trial. This undermines their ability to work on their defense, to assist their counsel and to obtain a fair trial.
Regarding the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment: The Supreme Court has struck down, as cruel and unusual punishment, the death penalty for crimes that do not involve an intent to kill (Coker v. Georgia, (433 U.S. 584, 1977, rape); Enmund v. Florida (458 U.S. 782, 1982, co-defendant in a robbery and murder); Cabana v. Bullock, (474 U.S. 376, 1986, instructions to jury require finding an intent to commit murder).; cf. Tison v. Arizona (481 U.S. 137, 1987). However, on June 28, 1990 the Senate, by a 66 to 32 vote, adopted the D'Amato amendment to S. 1970 providing for the death penalty for a person convicted of any drug violation committed as part of a large scale continuing criminal enterprise (21 U.S.C. 848(b) and (c)(1) (involving for example 30,000 kilograms of marijuana, or only 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base, 300 grams of LSD, 30 kilograms of heroin, etc.), even where no homicide has been committed. While these are significant quantities, by no means are they earth-shaking quantities. And considering the purity of the drug is not considered, a mid-level operative may be chargeable with a capital offense. When it comes to fighting the war on drugs, the Senate is prepared to inflict punishments the Supreme Court has held are cruel and unusual. Only the presence of controversial amendments to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and a provision in the House crime bill to allow the introduction of evidence of racial disparity in the imposition of the death penalty, combined with the exhaustion of Congress in the October 1990 budget deadlock, resulted in the elimination of these death penalty provisions in the enacted legislation (S.3266).
Unless the political climate is forced to change, it is only a matter of time before the death penalty for these types of offenses will be imposed. (Parenthetically, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 5, 1990 in Harmelin v. Michigan (No. 89-7272), on the question of whether the Michigan law requiring a sentence of mandatory life in prison without possibility of parole for the simple possession of more than 650 grams of cocaine constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The only other offenses in Michigan which carry the same sentence are first degree murder, as well as possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and distribution of cocaine.)
I’m going to skip the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for a moment. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, and the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees equal protection of the laws. Those amendments have been read to prohibit government behavior which continues the badges of slavery -- the treatment of African American citizens as second class citizens (See City of Memphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100, 126 (1981). When the police get the license to crack down on suspects as part of the war on drugs, in what community do they stop people without any cause whatsoever? In what communities do the drag nets take place? You know the answer. Overwhelmingly, it is in minority communities. The Los Angeles Times ("Blacks Feel Brunt of Drug War", April 22, 1990, p.1) has shown that this is the case throughout the nation.
Consider the National High School Senior Survey of the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows white youth use drugs at higher rates than black youth. However, the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reported that minority youth detained for drug offenses increased by 71 percent between 1983 and 1985. The rate of detention of white youth was stable. This is typical of how the burden of enforcement of the drug laws is inflicted on Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. Even though many more pregnant white women use cocaine than pregnant Black women, 80% of all of the arrests of women for endangering their fetus or delivering cocaine to their fetus are of Black women.
The spirit of the 13th and 14th Amendments is violated everyday because the police are carrying out the war on drugs much more heavy handedly in communities of color. Equal protection of the law is being denied.
Super classic examples of violation of our Constitutional Rights is that of the actions taken by DHR (Department of Human Resources). All they have to do is HEAR of a possible act they can investigate; an anonymous phone call; over hear a conversation; or whatever and those power hunger bastards will be all over a family like a flock of chickens after a June bug.
With them, you ARE guilty until you prove yourself innocent and the source of their information or informant does not have to be given to you. You don’t have the right to face your accuser. And they can yank your children right out of your home if they THINK you are not a good enough parent or the home is not up to a high enough standard.Not one human has ever been born a parent. Parenthood is something that is learned. And how a parent teaches the child is the parent’s God given right through pro-creation and it’s responsibilities.. Trail and error while using the guidance of teachings of your parents, reality and logic is more about parenthood than any other method. It all comes down to only a few firmly set rules to follow; however most of us are hind-sight learners when it comes to parenthood;
Returning to the Bill of Rights…..
The Ninth Amendment provides that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What are those other rights? Those are every other right. Now, when we think about rights, let's ask, "where do rights come from?" Do our rights come from Constitutional amendments? Are those our only rights? Or does the existence of our rights precede the First Amendment? Wasn't it the Declaration of Independence said that "we hold these truths to be self evident" ; that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights?"
Those rights don't flow from Congress. Uncle Sam doesn't give us our rights. We had our rights before the government was created.
Consider the right to vote. The Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution say that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race or on account of sex. Did those rights come into existence because white males suddenly thought it would be a neat idea to give those rights to the rest of us? Did those rights come into existence because Congress finally decided to vote for them? No. Those rights always existed. They were not recognized by the society. But those rights were always there. Was it Black Americans or women that changed in 1870 or 1920? No, society changed -- it recognized that a right which existed, the exercise of which was being denied, must now be guaranteed. Society's recognition of our rights is slow, it evolves.
I argue that there is a right to use drugs. Last night a few of you drank alcohol -- a drug. Today, a few of you have used nicotine, a drug. We don't urine test people to prevent them from using nicotine. We don't lock up the nicotine dealers. Most of us have had caffeine today, a very powerful central nervous system stimulant. We drink it in very carefully measured dosages, usually in common six ounce ceramic cups or ubiquitous Styrofoam cups. Coffee cups are drug paraphernalia. A wine glass, a beer bottle, they are drug paraphernalia. An ashtray is drug paraphernalia.
We use drugs in our society legally and illegally to an enormous degree. Why are the drug laws violated by tens of millions of our fellow citizens? Because they intuitively know that they have a right to engage in conduct that gives them pleasurable sensations even though it is prohibited -- that those laws are unjust.
Many of those that read this thesis, probably a majority, recognize a woman's right to control her reproductive freedom, to control her reproductive tissues, to control her womb. How is the right of all us to control our brains any less? Don't we have a right to control our cerebral tissue?
To say that exercise of personal control over something so intrinsically personal as one's brain and central nervous system is not a right reserved under the Ninth Amendment means that the Ninth Amendment is almost meaningless.
The Tenth Amendment says that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the people. Where is the power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to say, "We declare that your brain is off limits to you. You cannot use those cells in your brain that opium can affect, or that marijuana stimulates. Your brain is not really yours to control. The space between your ears -- that's not really yours to control. We're the Congress. That's our space. You are prohibited from using your brain in unapproved ways." Is this a power that the Congress has? If so, where did it get it and when?
Let's think about the First amendment broadly for a moment, and think about the policy that underlies the First Amendment. Ultimately, the First amendment is designed to guarantee our right to make up our minds. ("Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties . . . . They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. . . ." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (concurring opinion of Justice Brandeis, joined by Justice Holmes, 274 U.S. at 375). Brandeis defended the "freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think" as "indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth." (274 U.S. at 375).) [Only political truth? I think
How do our minds work? As you hear me speaking or if you read this, there are biochemical changes taking place in your brain. That's what's happening. Your brain is changing chemically. If you remember what I say or wrote, your brain has been permanently changed.
In fact, what I'm saying is more dangerous than any drug you can take -- much more dangerous. You might get angry at your members of Congress for deliberately or carelessly embracing a policy that systematically degrades your hard won freedoms and liberties. You might protest or take action and challenge the government. Even though what I'm saying is very dangerous because it's affecting your brain, and affects your ability to make up your mind about drug laws, what I'm saying is protected by the First Amendment.
Do you have a right to listen or a right to read? Even though the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say "the freedom to listen shall not be abridged", isn't it obvious that you have a right to listen. If so, in material terms you have a right to chose to have your brain changed by what you want to listen to or what you read, or what you see.
Two centuries ago the King of England did not try to prevent Americans from directly using their brains. He did what he could do, which was to punish seditious speech and treasonous writings -- things which profoundly influenced the minds of revolutionaries through the chemical changes they caused in their brains.
Today, we know how the brain functions as a biological processor of chemicals. But since Congress has by law acted to intervene in your choice of brain-effecting chemicals, forbidding you from choosing certain drugs that millions of Americans desire, we must ask, "What is Congress' constitutional power for doing this?"
Congress' legislative powers are set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The authority to ban drugs is no longer based on the power to tax, as it was from 1914 until 1970. .Congress now asserts its power to forbid the use of drugs in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C 801; titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-513.) is based on it's power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. (United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371,373 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Montes-Zarate, 552 F.2d 1330, 1331 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 947 (1978).) Now what, pray tell, does that have to do with your brain?
Congress recognized that if you grew marijuana in your backyard for your own use, there would be a very strong claim that such activities did not affect interstate or foreign commerce.
Therefore Congress asserted that "local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce" and declared that it could not "feasibly differentiate" or "distinguish" purely intrastate activity with respect to drugs from the interstate or foreign commerce in drugs.
Therefore, it claimed jurisdiction over drugs grown in your backyard, or always possessed by you in local, intrastate commerce. (21 U.S.C. 801(3),(4),(5),(6)).
Now, is your brain interstate commerce? Is your bedroom interstate commerce?
Consider the implications of this expansion of the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Beginning in 1933, Congress at the urging of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asserted an enormously expanded role in regulating interstate commerce. Conservatives considered it an almost revolutionary expansion. Only after a number of deaths and resignations, and the electoral sweep of 1936 was this enormously expanded claim of Federal power under the interstate commerce clause upheld by the Supreme Court (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937)).
We therefore accepted the expansion of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce to the maximum. Even if an individual's act is trivial, that is irrelevant if it is a type of act, when cumulated with other similar acts, might reasonably be deemed by the Congress to have substantial national consequences. (See, e.g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971)).
There was also created the theory that Congress could enact prohibitions to "protect" interstate commerce. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 excluded from interstate commerce goods made in plants with did not meet Federal standards for wages and hours of employees. (This was upheld in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941): "Congress, following its own conception of public policy concerning the restrictions which may appropriately be imposed on interstate commerce, is free to exclude from such commerce articles whose use in the states for which they are destined it may conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals, or welfare..." (312 U.S. at 114).) In the 1960's Congress used the interstate commerce power to guarantee civil rights in interstate travel and accommodations. (e.g. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc, v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)).
It is time to consider, where does interstate commerce end? I'm sitting here writing the thesis and you are elsewhere; utilizing a method which travel as interstate commerce. I'm using a computer made elsewhere in the world and using electricity which comes from outside my state. My pocket is full of credit cards, tools of interstate commerce. However, I spent the night here, I've had a nice internet conversation with a friend in Germany and ate my meal in this state. Am I actually here in Alabama or am I still in the limbo of interstate commerce? If I am still in interstate commerce now, when do I leave interstate commerce? Can I ever leave interstate commerce? (Notably, Justice Rehnquist suggested that "it would be a mistake to conclude that Congress' power to regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause is unlimited. Some activities may be so private or local in nature that they simply may not be in commerce. Nor is it sufficient that the person or activity reached have some nexus with interstate commerce." Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981) (concurring opinion at 310). Departing from the post New Deal line of cases he concluded, the commerce power "does not reach activity which merely 'affects' interstate commerce. There must be a showing that a regulated activity has a substantial effect on that commerce." 452 U.S. at 312. (Bold in the original, underlining added.) So far, no other justices have joined this argument.)
But if I am in interstate commerce, what about those of you who have not left your home state to come to this reading. Are you in interstate commerce? If interstate commerce can constitutionally be claimed to be the basis for anything that Congress wants to regulate, what part of our lives is not vulnerable to regulation by Congress? If Congress can use this power this broadly in the regulation of our brains, then the Federal government is omnipotent and the notion of constitutional checks and balances is non-existent.
If our brain is vulnerable to regulation as interstate commerce, then certainly our wombs and genitals are too, aren't they, and our blood, our heart, our lips, our fingers, our eyes, and our ears? Is there any part of us that is not in interstate commerce?
I believe that at some point the tissues inside our skin must be totally outside interstate commerce, or else Congress has unlimited power to tell us to do whatever it wants us to do. It is this, it seems to me, that is the most dangerous heart of the war on drugs and which strips the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of their meaning. Essentially the legal basis for the war on drugs depends upon the assumption of total power by the Congress and the Federal Government to regulate the most intimate aspects of our lives, the very dreams that we have. And the propaganda arm of the war on drugs has been successful persuading us to unwittingly surrender this vital power over ourselves to the Federal government. Indeed the propaganda of the urgency of the war on drugs has been so successful, many of our fellow citizens consciously believe we must surrender ourselves for the good of the state.
Seen in this light, the war on drugs is the corner stone of an as yet un-built edifice of totalitarianism. Challenging the war on drugs is the most important issue facing civil liberties and the preservation of the Bill of Rights.
I am not a lawyer, but aside from the questions of due process and constitutionally required criminal procedure, the criminal justice system is going down the tubes. The American Bar Association issued a special report, Criminal Justice in Crisis, which found the criminal justice system is being overwhelmed with drug cases. (CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN CRISIS, American Bar Association, Section on Criminal Justice, Special Committee on Criminal Justice in a Free Society, 1988, p.6.) It functions as an assembly line. No longer does individualized justice takes place. The attorneys, prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges are mere mechanics that keep the machine of arrest and imprisonment functioning.
I won't discuss today the many serious costs our society is suffering from undertaking the prohibition approach to the problem of drugs; with the increased crime, the spread of disease, the economic price of enriching organized crime by $100 billion per year. I won't analyze our national drug control strategy to explain how it cannot succeed in stopping the cultivation and shipment of drugs into the United States. Someone who might be indifferent to the hits taken by the Bill of Rights, should be alarmed by the problems caused our nation by drug prohibition because they effect everyone. Affect their pocketbook, in their personal safety, in the availability of quality health care.
Next year (2004) will be an election year. Out with the old farts that think of yester-year and in with the young minds that see the times as they are and look to their future with the eyes of tomorrow. Now is the time for us; “We The People” to begin to educate the public about the jeopardy our heritage of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, faces from the war on drugs. If we fail to do this, who will do it? If no one does it, then surely the unalienable right we find to be self-evident will be denied more each day and we die as a democratic society.It should be obvious that all of these comments do not deny that drug abuse is not a terribly tragic situation. As is alcoholism. As are 300,000 annual deaths from tobacco and cigarette addiction. Those are terrible things too. But we are not going to solve any of these problems by allowing the war on drugs to make our Bill of Rights into a shattered remnant of the vital shield it once was and MUST Always Be
War on Poverty:
Governmental non-profitable and is being shoved farther back on the priorities list on a daily basis. Our present representatives and administrators are doing nothing to rectify this condition. Yet they seem to be going in an entirely different direction with this issue.
Trade legislations and agreements with other countries have taken jobs away from each and every one of us. Big and small business alike have been slowing moving out of our reach, depriving each of us the chance to prosper through the ability to be employed. Depriving each of us the chance to prosper and allow the pursuit of happiness.
The FTA is the final nail in our coffin. The nails created and driven into out coffins by the DCMA could have been pulled out by our Government through the revisions of the ACT.. However, once the United States signed an agreement under the FTA with another nation, we lost the chance to have the damage the present version of the DMCA has and is doing to us rectified with legal changes and under the supervision of America’s Intellectuals. Once an agreement is co-signed with any other government under the parameters set forth under the FTA, it will be politically impossible to rectify the DMCA’s constitutional violations because we would also have to change the conditions of the FTA. Trying to change the FTA conditions would be a two-faced move under the philosophies of most all other nations. It would be like we were trying to change the boat in the middle of the stream. [Sound familiar ?]Now, the reason it would be politically impossible for the changes of the FTA and DMCA to be confronted and implemented is that in politics you cannot say what you know is right and feel. Instead, you must say what you think will not piss the other bastards off or insult them. Politics require plenty of ass-kissing, [I meant to say - Sucking Up] cowardly attitudes and all the money you can get your fat little grubby hands on. [That’s when you get where you can’t remember things and a BJ is not considered as sex, nor can the lips really be read of a boat changing leader.]
War in Afghanistan - Iraq - Liberia - Nigeria
Technology has accelerated with leaps and bounds in a very short span of time and we are engulfed in it as if it was an intoxicating drink. We have become drunk with the addictions to our new technologies and the world goes on around us. We think things are going fine, while at the same time we are being slowly brainwashed and unknowingly herded like cattle by our government through these violations in order that they may gain more and more control over us as individuals. Once we lose our individuality, we will become docile as a people. .
To gain this control, the conditioning must be extremely shuttle and inescapable once they have slowly deprived us of our Constitutional Rights. If the attempted change(s) is that of a shock which is too dramatic for us to readily accept, there is government fear that we might awaken and possible turmoil erupt. I hate to say this, but the “conditioning” started many years ago and only lately has there been a profound and outwardly move to continue to do this to Us.This profound and outwardly move to strip us of our Constitutional Rights became public on many occasions and are part of documents (legal, yet unlawful) or are full blown actions of the government administration.. One such move that has violated the rights of the law-abiding citizen is the Declaration of the War on Drugs. Another, Gun Control. Another, and so on and on and on…..
Electronics Revolution:
Computers And Artificial Intelligence:
Fear Of The PULSE:
Intellectual Property: Is there really such a thing ?
Transportation Industry:
(The State Of Alabama has finally completely re-built this area. I hope my interventions were part of the state's reasoning to re-build about eight (8) miles of that section of the Interstate Highway).
If you or anyone you know has had an accident on Interstate Highway #59 in northeast Alabama (Etowah County) at the mile marker #194 (north-bound)*, please contact me with your vital information for the purpose of compiling a Class-Action suit against ALL irresponsible parties.
Irrefragable evidence has been obtained that shows a fault with the interstate highway at the fore mentioned location(s).
This location is approximately 6 miles north of Gadsden, Alabama and actually extends from mile marker #193.8 to #194.3. At the time of this writing, it does not immediately affect the southbound lanes.
Businesses, love-ones and individuals involved in an accident at this location are encouraged to contact me concerning their direct or indirect involvement.
[I posted this on a lot of the News Groups and had no response. I know that there is a very Dangerous situation there, but no one cares….. I never had anyone in any kind of transportation business to contact me about it. However, the very next time an accident occurs at that location, I will personally be there. The State Of Alabama Transportation Department nor the Federal Department of Transportation has ever contacted me. Wait until the next accident there; there will be something done about that Accident Waiting For A Time To Happen and believe me…. Heads should roll ! ]
It occurred again . . . . However, it was less than a mile from the referenced marker. I have decided to act upon to principle now.
No action seems to have taken place as yet. The accident must not have been severe enough for anyone to pay attention, but wait until something really severe takes place… . . mark my words. Sunday, March 06, 2000 - Several days ago a tanker truck with a Haz-Mat (Hazardous Materials) load wrecked at the 193.7 north bound and the EPA was called in on it. After a telephone conversation with the news desk, I was requested by the Gadsden Times to send them the data I had on the highway a few days ago and in today’s edition - Front page - there was a large article concerning the curve. A very small fraction of my data concerning the curve was used. No terra information concerning the old land-slide was mentioned. ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- getroman com reviews
- acurafinancialservices.com account management
- acurafinancialservices.com account ma
- getroman.com tv
- http cashier.95516.com bing
- http cashier.95516.com bingprivacy notice.pdf
- connected mcgraw hill com lausd
- education.com games play
- rushmorelm.com one time payment
- autotrader.com used cars
- b com 2nd year syllabus
- gmail.com sign in