Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] S.Ct. Discusses Unconstitutional Tactics Used by Law Enforcement

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... And the only reason they ended up discussing it was because somebody went all the way to the Supreme Court. They made it past the Ashwander Rules and
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 8, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Legalbear wrote:

      > Subject: [tips_and_tricks] S.Ct. Discusses Unconstitutional Tactics
      > Used by Law Enforcement

      And the only reason they ended up discussing it was because somebody
      went all the way to the Supreme Court. They made it past the Ashwander
      Rules and every other impediment thrown in their way. They suffered the
      appeals process. That's the whole thing about making it to the Supreme
      Court. Not every case can qualify. It hardly ever happens by accident.

      > [59] Moreover, when a court assists the Government in
      > extracting fruits from the victims of its lawless searches it degrades
      > the integrity of the judicial system. For "nothing can destroy a
      > government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or
      > worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." Mapp v.
      > Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659. For this reason, our decisions have embraced
      > the view that "the tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of
      > the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and
      > enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgments of
      > the courts, which are charged at all times with support of the
      > Constitution." Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392. As mentioned
      > earlier, this principle was at the heart of the Silverthorne decision.
      > Later in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S., at 470, a
      > case in which federal wiretappers had violated an Oregon law, Mr.
      > Justice Holmes, citing Silverthorne, thought that both the officers
      > and the court were honor bound to observe the state law: "If the
      > existing code does not permit district attorneys to have a hand in
      > such dirty business it does not permit the judge to allow such
      > iniquities to succeed." In the same case, Justice Brandeis, who was
      > then alone in his view that wiretapping was a search within the
      > meaning of the Fourth Amendment, phrased it this way: "In a government
      > of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to
      > observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the
      > omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people
      > by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a
      > lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
      > a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Id., at 485.

      Here it is made clear that the laws and constitutions overrule
      paycheck-anticipator whim. So why are things so messed up in general?
      Because most "accused" people do not envision going to the Supreme Court
      while in the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation). Often getting the
      pizza home in consumable condition trumps the exercise of rights that
      are more and more unnecessary for life in the Matrix. And nobody wants
      to be TASED either. The voice of the masses is heard in the choices
      they make.

      > In an entrapment case, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, with whom
      > Justices Harlan, BRENNAN, and I joined, thought that "the federal
      > courts have an obligation to set their face against enforcement of the
      > law by lawless means" because "public confidence in the fair and
      > honorable administration of justice, upon which ultimately depends the
      > rule of law; is the transcending value at stake." Sherman v. United
      > States, 356 U.S. 369, 380 (concurring in result); see also his opinion
      > for the Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 340-341. In a
      > Self-Incrimination Clause decision, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN (joined by MR.
      > JUSTICE MARSHALL and myself) used fewer words: "it is monstrous that
      > courts should aid or abet the lawbreaking police officer." Harris v.
      > New York, 401 U.S. 222, 232 (dissenting opinion).

      Hey, how about the lawbreaking WOULD-BE POLICE OFFICER? The other night
      on the bus there was an assault. People called out to call the cops on
      a cell phone. So I loudly announced, "Okay but we'll have to overlook
      the cop's failure to have his oath and bond in order, just this one
      time. Does anyone here besides me care that cops are actually not in
      compliance with the laws that make them cops and give them any more
      authority than we have?" The gist of the replies was that the cops were
      incompetent and useless and that the bus crowd would handle the
      situation. Nobody replied directly to my question. The driver of the
      bus was not competent in English enough to take charge of the situation.
      His English was limited to a few script lines repeated every trip.
      Eventually, things quieted down and the trip proceeded. Nobody did
      anything about the assault, even the victim, even the victim's friends,
      and the criminal assailant went free.

      I was too far forward in my seat and was an incompetent witness and went
      by my hearing and hearsay of all the others as things transpired.

      Court citations that make it seem that rights and laws are still
      respected are very numerous and collectible, and very good for people to
      read and know about. But people do not use them in the IMOC where they
      carry the most weight. The IMOC should lead to a pretty clear exposition
      of the accused's case, while not waiving any rights for any cause or
      reason, and should not skip over crucial administrative and procedural
      matters first being "standing" to even SPEAK in MY case! I'm no fun and
      do not make many friends in IMOCs. But I do try to be entertaining and
      interesting and compassionate and educational with this younger
      generation of brainwashed frn-slaves the corporations deem expendable.

      A court case can be won by having the record show a series of rights
      violations of the accused. The opportunity to make record begins in the
      IMOC. I personally have my own agenda to fulfill in any IMOC I may find
      myself in, no matter what the intentions or claims of the opposing side.
      I have my eye on the Supreme Court even then.

      One case I was in, I said to the prosecutor, "I hope that when we reach
      Washington D.C. the cherry trees are in bloom."

      With the collapse of everything there will be lots more IMOCs for us all
      as there will be more attempts to extract revenue for bankrupt
      organizations. One of the first things in this vein is traffic cameras.
      People who fight for their rights can win, while those willing to waive
      them will lose.

      Regards,

      FF
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.