The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Held that the Circuit Court of Cooks County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. Vs. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th. Cir. 1985), 31 Judges were removed from the bench after a Federal Court Ordered an investigation, it was confirmed aiding and abetting from the inferior Courts to the Federal Court, violations at every level with no one reporting the crimes! The United States Supreme Court Acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cooks County, when it stated that Judge Maloney was one of Many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through "Operation Greylord", a labyrinthine federal Investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago, Bracey Vs. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997)! The Court in Yates Vs. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that, "Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function . it is not a judicial function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the Courthouse, when a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and The Judge's orders are void, of no legal force or effect"! The United States Supreme Court has stated that "No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his Undertaking to support it". Cooper Vs. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). If a judge does not fully Comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, in re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is Without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts TREASON!
Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt Updated 7:55 PM ET March 4, 2003 NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall. According to the criminal complaint filed on Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany. "I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs. When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read. Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly. "I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs told Reuters in a telephone interview. Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct. Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment. Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17. He could face up to a year in prison if convicted.
Sounds more likely that he has a First Amendment lawsuit and stands to gain $$$ vs. this mall. Do the police enforce state traffic laws in the parking lots? If so the mall can be thought of as a "public place" not like someone's home
Since he is an attorney I imagine that he will have thought of that angle and probably others as well. I can tell you that in Oklahoma they will not even investigate a traffic accident in a private parking lot nor in a shopping mall. I believe that is correct but although I suspect that such is true in all states I can only state what the situation is in Oklahoma.
District Attorney Terence Hallinan got more than he asked for when a grand jury returned its indictment of 10 cops, including the upper echelon of San Francisco's police department, sources within the district attorney's office said Friday. Hallinan "felt like the bombardier on the Enola Gay" when he looked at the indictment prepared by the panel Thursday, one source said, referring to the U. S. plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II. He thought, "Christ, look what we have just done!" On Friday, as word of the indictment spread, the outlines of how the SFPD's top command came to be implicated in a case that began with three cops involved in a street fight began to emerge from interviews. The answer appears to lie in a grand jury with a mind of its own. According to sources familiar with the case, the district attorney's office, represented by veteran career criminal prosecutor Al Murray and Hallinan himself, was seeking a more limited indictment when it began grand jury proceedings on Jan. 28. "You just had a grand jury that ran away," one source said. "It can happen where you say, 'I would like to indict A and B for crimes 1, 2 and 3,' and the grand jury comes back and says, 'We also want to indict C, D, E and F on 4, 5 and 6,' " Hallinan declined comment, and Murray could not be reached. But, according to one of the sources, Hallinan -- during opening and closing statements to jurors -- invited them to not sit passively as listeners but rather delve into the evidence as they wished. One of the sources said Hallinan asked the jurors "to operate as investigators," and they apparently took him up on it. "They asked hundreds of questions" and heard from 42 witnesses, one source said. By the end, the grand jurors returned felony assault indictments against Officers Alex Fagan Jr., 23, son of Assistant Chief Alex Fagan Sr., MatthewTonsing, 28, and David Lee, 23, and conspiracy to obstruct justice indictments against Chief Earl Sanders, second-in-command Fagan Sr., Deputy Chief Greg Suhr, Deputy Chief David Robinson, Capt. Greg Corrales, Lt. Ed Cota and Sgt. John Syme. Fagan Jr., Tonsing and Lee are accused of beating up two men while off-duty outside a Union Street bar at about 2:30 a.m. Nov. 20, after a celebration at a restaurant several blocks away commemorating the promotion of Fagan Sr. to assistant chief. The others are accused of impeding the police investigation of the alleged assault. One grand juror who spoke on condition of anonymity said the jury, which was impaneled for four months and heard numerous cases, deliberated fairly in the police department case. "It was made up of 19 very good citizens, an extremely diverse group," the juror said. "None of us took this lightly. We knew this would impact the city at all levels, it would impact all these people's lives and their family's lives. We knew there was a high threshold." Of the decision, the juror said, "It had to do with the facts of the case. That's really what we judged the evidence on." HALLINAN ON HOT SEAT Next to Chief Sanders and the other nine indicted commanders and officers, the person most on the hot seat as a result of the grand jury's decision is Hallinan, the combative, two-term D.A. who has clashed with Mayor Willie Brown and the SFPD in the past and faces what is expected to be another tough re- election campaign this fall. One prosecutor in the D.A.'s office said that when a grand jury expands the scope of a prosecution "the big issue is whether there is evidence to support it at trial." If not, the D.A. should dismiss what it can't prove, the prosecutor said. But "as a practical matter," the prosecutor added, "you made the choice to go to the grand jury, and they decided your case for you." However, another source familiar with the case said Hallinan became convinced that the grand jury got it right and that the transcript of the proceedings, when it becomes public, will bear him out. According to the source, the jurors "got a lot more pissed off" about the conduct of the department's command staff than Hallinan himself ever did. Hallinan had cited the department's alleged failure to thoroughly investigate as his reason for taking the matter to the grand jury. As an alternative to taking the case to a grand jury, Hallinan simply could have filed criminal charges and taken the case before a judge who would decide at a preliminary hearing whether there was sufficient evidence to place the defendants on trial. In a preliminary hearing, defense lawyers get the opportunity to cross- examine government witnesses. In a secret grand jury proceeding, no such cross- examination occurs. POLITICALLY CHARGED CASE Some legal observers said Hallinan had good reason to employ a grand jury rather than file charges directly in such a politically charged case. "In political cases, there is a cleansing that goes on when you hand it to a grand jury of citizens and have them decide," San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said. "Given the fact that prosecutors and police have such a close relationship, it would make sense to have this case go to the grand jury. " Others questioned whether Hallinanjumped the gun in taking the case to the grand jury, however. "Terence is a very impulsive guy," said Peter Keane, dean of Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, citing, among other things, scrapes the D.A. has gotten in with San Franciscojudges over statements to the press. "If nothing else, it should be great theater," Keane said. "My first reaction is Hallinan has bitten off a big chunk here, and he better be prepared to chew it and swallow it." Grand juries have wide authority to act This is how a criminal county grand jury works in San Francisco: The grand jury is made up of 19 members from the community and typically meets twice a week for four months. The jurors are chosen by San Francisco's presiding judge. There are three grand juries impaneled a year. Grand juries go as far back as the Middle Ages. They were used in England to protect citizens from the overreaching authority of the crown. In San Francisco, 150 people are summoned to duty for each grand jury. Of that number, the judge eliminates anyone with a hardship. Of the remaining prospective jurors, 32 names are randomly pulled from an old iron drum. They are individually questioned by the judge to determine whether they can be objective and impartial. A background check is also conducted to ensure that none of the prospective jurors has a felony conviction. Then the names go back in the drum and 19 are randomly chosen. From that number the judge picks a foreperson. The grand jury can be used to investigate criminal activity and to issue indictments. It usually hears multiple cases during the four months it is in service and has subpoena power. There must be at least 12 jurors in the room to conduct business. They conduct their business in secret and jurors swear not to discuss their deliberations, even after their service ends, although the transcripts of the deliberations are made public. Once a prosecutor has brought a case to the jurors, they have far more authority than those hearing a trial. They can grill witnesses, ask for further evidence and conduct their own inquiries. While no defense attorneys are allowed in the jury room, prosecutors are required by law to not only present damaging evidence but must show anything that is favorable or exculpatory. It takes 12 jurors, who have heard all the evidence from beginning to end, all to agree before an indictment is issued. The jurors also have the power to indict people other than those brought before the panel.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE Nov. 19 Alex Fagan Jr., MatthewTonsing, David Lee and more than 100 other off-duty police officers attend a banquet at House of Prime Rib to celebrate the promotion of Fagan's father, Alex Fagan Sr., to assistant chief. Nov. 20 (Times are approximate) 12 a.m.: The banquet breaks up. Fagan Jr., Tonsing and Lee go to the Bus Stop bar on Union Street. 2 a.m.: The three officers leave the Bus Stop. About 100 yards away, Adam Snyder --, a bartender, is closing up at the Blue Light bar. He leaves with his friend Jade Santoro. 2:20 a.m.: Two of the officers allegedly accost Snyder and Santoro on Union Street and demand Santoro's bag of steak fajitas. The third drives up in a pickup truck, and a fight ensues. 2:27 a.m.: Snyder calls 911 on his cell phone. "I need some cops fast," he tells the dispatcher. He later tells the dispatcher, "I just got out of work, and they just started fighting us, over nothing." 2:29 a.m.: Police arrive to find Snyder and Santoro bleeding and their assailants gone. The three officers later return to the scene, but the investigating officers allow them to leave without being questioned, tested for alcohol or having their clothing checked for blood or other evidence. 4 a.m.: Capt. Greg Corrales, Tonsing's and Lee's boss at the Mission District police station, is called to Northern Station, where the three officers had been taken. He arrives 40 minutes later to find the three officers are present but have not been interviewed. He said they appeared to be sober. Corrales summons the supervising lieutenant of the night investigations unit and an internal affairs inspector. That investigator does not arrive at Northern Station until after 5 a.m. 5 a.m.: Santoro, who told police he suffered a broken nose, is released from San Francisco GeneralHospital after doctors staple closed a gash to his head. 7 a.m.: Investigators take urine samples to test for alcohol from Fagan Jr., Tonsing and Lee. Nov. 22 District Attorney Terence Hallinan meets with police officials and declares afterward that "we are upset by the way this investigation has been pursued so far, as are the police officers we spoke with." Police Chief Earl Sanders, who does not attend the meeting, later defends his department and compares critics of the probe to those who vilified Jesus Christ. Mayor Willie Brown suggests the incident was one of "mutual combat." Nov. 27 Corrales calls the accusations against the officers "ludicrous," but concedes that the initial investigation was lax. Dec. 2 Police officials reveal that Fagan Jr. had been ordered to undergo anger management after yelling and cursing at a suspect in September. The training was put off after the Union Street incident. Dec. 5 Police sources say inspectors looking into the initial investigation have been barred from interviewing several officers, examining cell phone records and disciplinary histories. Dec. 11 Police hand over their findings in the case to Hallinan. The district attorney asks for follow-up inquiries. Jan. 10, 2003 The FBI says it has started a preliminary investigation into potential civil rights violations stemming from incidents of alleged brutality involving Fagan Jr. The district attorney's office is conducting a similar probe. Three men have filed claims with the city alleging Fagan Jr. and other officers roughed them up during arrests. Jan. 14 Lt. Joe Dutto, who had been leading the police investigation, is transferred to the vice squad. Dutto's reaction: "You can read between the lines." Jan. 15 Hallinan blasts Dutto's transfer and says of the SFPD brass, "There's a failure to cooperate here." Dutto says the command staff put obstacles in his way. Police officials insist the transfer was routine and done as part of a larger shakeup. Jan. 28 Hallinan takes case to criminal grand jury, calling the first of what will eventually be more than 40 witnesses. Feb. 12 Memo surfaces from Sgt. Vickie Stansberry, Fagan Jr.'s former supervising sergeant, dating from Sept. 19. In it, she warns superiors that Fagan Jr. was a problem officer prone to clashing with suspects and supervisors alike. Feb. 27 A grand jury returns indictments against Fagan Jr., Tonsing, Lee on assault charges, and seven other members on charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice: Sanders, Fagan Sr., Corrales, Deputy Chief Greg Suhr, Deputy Chief David Robinson, Lt. Ed Cota and Sgt. John Syme. Chronicle staff writer Suzanne Herel contributed to this report.
Re: Re: Treasonous judges In NY State if the Mall owners give police authority to enforce traffic laws then the mall is considered a "public place". Most malls do to prevent disregard of stop signs, no parking, etc.
Re: Re: Treasonous judges Forces to Create Computer System That Would Expose Personal Data of Americans DOJgov.net newswire Nov 9, 2002 According to the New York Times (Nov 9, 2002) the Pentagon is constructing a computer system that could create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe - including the United States. Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, director of this effort, has described the system in Pentagon documents and speeches. Its alleged goal is to provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant. Historically, military and intelligence agencies have not been permitted to spy on Americans without extraordinary legal authorization. But Admiral Poindexter, the former national security adviser in the Reagan administration, has argued that the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of minute details of electronic life in the United States. Admiral Poindexter has described this plan in public documents and speeches, but declines to be interviewed on the subject. However, he did say that that the government needs to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers. "We must become much more efficient and more clever in the ways we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, generate information, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge, and create actionable options," he said in a California speech earlier this year. Admiral Poindexter quietly returned to the government in January to take charge of the Office of Information Awareness at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa. The office is responsible for developing new surveillance technologies in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Prior to taking the position at the Pentagon, Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted in 1990 for his role in the Iran-contra affair, had worked as a contractor on one of the projects he now controls. Admiral Poindexter's conviction was reversed in 1991 by a federal appeals court because he had been granted immunity for his testimony before Congress about the case. In order to deploy such a system, known as Total Information Awareness, new legislation would be needed, some of which has been proposed by the Bush administration in the Homeland Security Act that is now before Congress. That legislation would amend the Privacy Act of 1974, which was intended to limit what government agencies could do with private information. In response to these intrusions on personal privacy, Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington said, "This could be the perfect storm for civil liberties in America. The vehicle is the Homeland Security Act, the technology is Darpa and the agency is the F.B.I. The outcome is a system of national surveillance of the American public." According to a Pentagon spokesman, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has been briefed on the project by Admiral Poindexter and the two had a lunch to discuss it. "As part of our development process, we hope to coordinate with a variety of organizations, to include the law enforcement community," a Pentagon spokeswoman said.
Re: Re: Treasonous judges An F.B.I. official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said the bureau had had preliminary discussions with the Pentagon about the project but that no final decision had been made about what information the F.B.I. might add to the system. A spokesman for the White House Office of Homeland Security, Gordon Johndroe, said officials in the office were not familiar with the computer project and he declined to discuss concerns raised by the project's critics without knowing more about it. He referred all questions to the Defense Department, where officials said they could not address civil liberties concerns because they too were not familiar enough with the project. Some members of a panel of computer scientists and policy experts who were asked by the Pentagon to review the privacy implications this summer said terrorists might find ways to avoid detection and that the system might be easily abused. "A lot of my colleagues are uncomfortable about this and worry about the potential uses that this technology might be put, if not by this administration then by a future one," said Barbara Simon, a computer scientist who is past president of the Association of Computing Machinery. "Once you've got it in place you can't control it." If deployed, civil libertarians argue, the computer system would rapidly bring a surveillance state. They assert that potential terrorists would soon learn how to avoid detection in any case while the innocent American public will be subject to constant in depth investigation and surveillance. The new system will rely on a set of computer-based pattern recognition techniques known as "data mining," a set of statistical techniques used by scientists as well as by marketers searching for potential customers. The system would permit a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between individuals and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share information efficiently, all from their individual computers. The project calls for the development of a prototype based on test data that would be deployed at the Army Intelligence and Security Command at Fort Belvoir, Va. Officials would not say when the system would be put into operation. The system is one of a number of projects now under way inside the government to lash together both commercial and government data to hunt for patterns of terrorist activities. "What we are doing is developing technologies and a prototype system to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists, and decipher their plans, and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully pre-empt and defeat terrorist acts," said Jan Walker, the spokeswoman for the defense research agency. Others, including Michael G. Leventhal, Editor and Publisher of DOJgov.net feel that in a failed effort to provide a sane mix of safety with personal liberty, the government is creating machinery to subdue the American People. "The real problem involves an unwillingness on the part of both Republicans and Democrats to control our borders. Democrats want votes and Republicans want a source of cheap labor. Uncontrolled immigration has invited terrorists and potential Sleeper Cells into America. And a corrupt arrogant and indolent US Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service has spent more time and money persecuting whistleblowers to these activities than preserving the integrity and heritage of liberty within our nation. With a, better run and less self-serving government, none of this would be necessary. When a government can't protect its citizens, it subdues them."
Re: Re: Treasonous judges FBI Confirms 'Magic Lantern' Project Exists. And Carnivore gets renamed DCS1000 By Elinor Mills Abreu SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) Dec 12, 2001 - An FBI spokesman confirmed on Wednesday that the U.S. government is working on a controversial Internet spying technology, code-named ``Magic Lantern'', which could be used to eavesdrop on computer communications by "suspected criminals." ``It is a workbench project'' that has not yet been deployed, said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson. ``We can't discuss it because it's under development.'' The FBI has already acknowledged that it uses software that records keystrokes typed into a computer to obtain passwords that can be used to read encrypted e-mail and other documents as part of criminal investigations. Magic Lantern reportedly would allow the agency to plant a Trojan horse keystroke logger on a target's PC by sending a computer virus over the Internet, rather than require physical access to the computer as is now the case. When asked if Magic Lantern would require a court order for the FBI to use it, as existing keystroke logger technology does, Bresson said: ``Like all technology projects or tools deployed by the FBI it would be used pursuant to the appropriate legal process.'' Major anti-virus vendors this week said they would not voluntarily cooperate with the FBI and said their products would continue to be updated to detect and prevent viruses, regardless of their origin, unless there was a legal order otherwise. Doing so would anger customers and alienate non-U.S. customers and governments, they said, adding that there had been no requests by the FBI to ignore any viruses. While the FBI requires a court order to install its technology, formerly called ``Carnivore,'' some service providers reportedly comply voluntarily, while court orders are relatively easy to get, civil libertarians argue. ``If we were at war the government would be able to require technology companies to cooperate, I believe, in a number of ways, including getting back door access to information and computer systems.'' DOJgov.net Addendum: Details are sketchy, but Magic Lantern reportedly works by masquerading as an innocent e-mail attachment that will insert FBI spyware inside your computer. An Associated Press article reported that "at least one antivirus software company, McAfee Corp., was contacted by the FBI ... to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software and alert a suspect." And let's not forget Carnivore, which has been renamed DCS1000 by the FBI. CHANGING INTERNET ARCHITECTURE TO MONITOR AND CONTROL INFORMATION WASHINGTON AP Release October 26, 2001 - Stewart Baker, an attorney at the Washington D.C.-based Steptoe & Johnson and a former general consul to National Security Agency, said the FBI has plans to change the architecture of the Internet and route traffic through central servers that it would be able to monitor e-mail more easily. The plans go well beyond the Carnivore e-mail-sniffing system which allows the FBI to search for and extract specific e-mails off the Internet and generated so much controversy among privacy advocates and civil libertarians before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "From the work I've been doing, I've seen the efforts the FBI has been making and it suggests that they are going to unveil this in the next few months," Baker said of the plan. FBI Spokesman Paul Bresson said he was unaware of any development in the e-mail surveillance arena that would require major architectural changes in the Internet, but acknowledged that such a plan is possible. Any new efforts would "would be in compliance with wiretapping statutes," Bresson said. "We would be remiss if we didn't." Such a move might have been unthinkable before Sept. 11. Last year, privacy groups and civil libertarians howled in protest when the FBI trotted out plans to start using the Carnivore system. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington was ready to go full rounds with the government in court over Carnivore, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to take another look at its constitutionality. Now, though, the country is asking for more, not less, law enforcement on the Internet, and even those who once complained are coming around. "I have two minds on this," says Fred Peterson, vice president of government affairs for the Xybernaut Corporation, which manufactures computer technology for military and law enforcement. "The past six weeks have left little doubt in most peoples' mind, he said, that new measures must be taken."
Re: Re: Treasonous judges I don't think (FBI) motives are bad, but I do think they're using people's current state of mind - they're using it to their advantage," said Mikal Condon, staff attorney for EPIC. The new FBI plans would give the agency a technical backdoor to the networks of Internet service providers' like AOL and Earthlink and Web hosting companies, Baker said. It would concentrate Internet traffic in several central locations where e-mail and other web activity could be wiretapped [Editor's Note: and block "unfriendly" websites?]. Baker said he expects the agency will approach the Internet companies on an individual basis to ask for their help in the endeavor. Sue Ashdown, executive director of the Washington-based American ISP Association, an Internet company trade group, said most Internet companies aren't healthy enough financially to take on the government in court to protect their subscribers' privacy rights. And no one, she says, wants to appear hostile to law enforcement right now. "In the current patriotic climate, enterprises of all types will likely play along with the FBI in order to avoid a public relations disaster," said Gene Riccoboni, an Internet attorney with the Stamford, Connecticut-based Grimes & Battersby. The New Millennium Privacy Robbery: "Outside Review" of Carnivore (Now renamed DCS1000) by USDOJ FBI is Conducted by Insiders With Close Government Ties Carnivore is the USDOJ FBI email snooping software being forced on companies supplying you with internet and email access. It gives the USDOJ the ability to view anything you write and send... in the interests of "saving the children" and "fighting drugs," of course. Some House legislators suggested that the government should suspend use of the Internet surveillance tool that scoops up and reads your emails, but the Department of Justice refused. The following are excerpts from an unencrypted government PDF file, supplying the masked names and backgrounds of the "impartial" experts who will be making decisions that affect your internet privacy. You can get the entire unencrypted PDF version (not the one censored and released by the USDOJ in September 2000) by right clicking on "Carnivore Coverup Scam" and left clicking on "save target." It can then be viewed by Adobe Acrobat. It's no wonder that MIT refused to participate in this "impartial" review of Carnivore. They knew the fix was in... and your privacy was out. You will also note that the right of the US Department of Justice to batter your right to privacy is never in question. Only the technical aspects of this step towards growingly intrusive government is in question. For the first time in human history, people all over the world have the ability to communicate freely. One would believe that America would stand as the bastion of defense for this golden era. But even in this great nation, our government bureaucracy is becoming increasingly arrogant and reactively paranoid. And with this growing tendency of viewing citizens as subjects of a bureaucratic realm... none of us are safe.
Re: Re: Treasonous judges GAINESVILLE, Mo. Feb. 11 â?? A southwest Missouri man can have Jesus Christ as his attorney, but only one licensed to practice Missouri law will be allowed to speak for him during trial on charges he tampered with a judge. Defendant Richard John Adams, who described himself as a patriot and a Christian, told the Ozark County judge presiding over his case that under that ruling, he was "being restricted to the devil." Adams, of Branson, said he refers to lawyers as "devils" because he believes the Missouri Bar Association "created the Federal Reserve through their unconstitutional statutes and case laws." __________________ "In our system, basic sovereignty is supposed to reside in the separate states. The federal government has only specifically delegated powers." Time Magazine, January 16, 1995 The beast exudes an enzyme that prevents the coveted item from clotting and stopping its flow,thus allowing the creature to feed freely upon it. Vampire bat? No! mission statement of the I.R.S.
Re: Re: Treasonous judges "You have the right to remain silent ... and so do you, and you, and you." That's what police could be reciting from now on in the wake of a unique court ruling from the same Montana county that dealt with Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. A judge there has decided that once is not enough when it comes to Miranda warnings for criminal suspects who have multiple personalities. "That's absurd!" Richard Ackerman of the United States Justice Foundation told WorldNetDaily. "The judiciary that issued this ruling is as crazy as the person who proceeded with the claim in the first place." The decision comes in the case of Tessa Haley, a Helena woman accused of stabbing her longtime roommate last year. At the time of her arrest, Haley reportedly made several statements implicating herself, but District Judge Thomas Honzel tossed them out, saying the damaging remarks presumably had been made by Haley's alternate personality, who had not been given an additional advisement of her rights. "If you use that as a precedent," Ackerman said, "then anyone with a remote history of mental illness will use it to avoid criminal liability. It's just crazy! Just crazy!" Since 1966, police nationwide have been reading criminal suspects what is known as a Miranda warning, advising them of their rights before questioning. While having slight variations among law-enforcement agencies, a typical version includes: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. In the Montana case, as reported by the Helena Independent Record, court documents reveal a bizarre scenario that unfolded in the early evening of Sept 2. Police first got a call from a woman calling herself "Martha," who claimed she had just stabbed another woman. Upon arrival to the scene, officers found Haley, 58, working on her home computer. She was wearing a surgical mask and her hands were stained with blood. She explained the mask was a guard against germs, but denied knowledge of the emergency call, or of any person known as Martha. Meanwhile, a local hospital phoned authorities to say it was treating a woman suffering a two-inch stab wound and that the victim had positively identified Haley as her assailant. Police handcuffed Haley, read her the Miranda warning, and commenced a search of the residence with the woman's permission. When officers asked if she'd take a breath test for drug or alcohol consumption, Haley said she should probably consult an attorney. So, investigators halted their questioning. According to police reports, a change in Haley's personality was then noticed by an officer who says Haley began growling, demanding to know what was happening. When asked if she knew the victim, the woman now identifying herself as "Martha" said, "I stabbed her." Before transporting Haley to jail, police brought her to St. Peter's Hospital to check her mental status. It was there, according to court records, that Haley recounted more events, including an admission she couldn't consummate the killing since the victim had escaped. Public Defender Randi Hood argued that none of the remarks made by "Martha" should be admissible, as Haley had invoked her right to legal counsel. "It is inconceivable that one personality could relinquish the right to have an attorney present before questioning to the detriment of other personalities," she wrote. Hood also argued to strike similar statements made at the hospital, in spite of objections by prosecutors, who said both Haley and her alter ego were never forced by police to disclose anything. Lewis and Clark County Attorney Leo Gallagher said Haley's admissions had been spontaneous, as officers had stopped their interrogation and were looking out for the suspect's well-being during the hospital run. In the end, Judge Honzel decided the incriminating statements both at home and the hospital should be suppressed. Nonetheless, prosecutors don't appear devastated by the ruling. "I can understand why the judge made his decision, and we'll try to work around it and get some better evidence," Gallagher told the Independent Record. After WorldNetDaily informed Ackerman of the case specifics, the California-based USJF attorney provided a more in-depth reaction. "First, it is not the job of an arresting officer to diagnose a suspect for possible and existent mental disorders," Ackerman said. "Second, even if it were their duty, they have no duty to determine the number of possible 'personalities' that they are about to arrest. A rational approach to Miranda suggests that only one 'person' is being arrested. If, in fact, the person is mentally ill, they have no concerns to begin with, since insanity is a complete defense to an intentional crime. What's the point in giving Miranda advisements if there is no assurance that a 'personality' hears it at all? "This is just one more example of judicially created law resulting in absurd results. Miranda is nowhere in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not create a separate class of rights for each claimed personality of a homicide suspect. "This ruling places an incredibly onerous burden on an arresting officer, and I am shocked that the county attorney has thrown up the white flag on this one. Be assured that California's 'criminally insane' will be the first to adopt a new family of personalities and hire a 'dream team' to bring an ignorant face to each one." The trial for Haley and "Martha" is slated to begin Jan. 21 on a charge of attempted homicide, punishable by up to life in prison and a $50,000 fine. Bail has been set at $100,000.
