Quote of the Day–Brian Hauss(6/6/2013)

To be sure, rummaging around through people’s personal papers may well turn up the occasional bad guy, but that is not the only consideration. No doubt law enforcement agents would also find it useful to walk into people’s homes at will, but we don’t allow them to do so because that would intrude on our reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes. And just as we reasonably expect privacy in our homes, so, too, do we expect that border agents will not base their decisions to search through our electronic information on a whim or a hunch. Put another way, requiring law enforcement agents to possess objective reasons for a search is a feature of our constitutional framework, not a bug.

(Emphasis mine.)

Brian HaussDHS Releases Disappointing Civil Liberties Report on Border Searches of Laptops and Other Electronics

June 5th, 2013


[For those who haven’t heard yet.  The DHS is claiming the following line of BS regarding searches at the border.

[A]dding a heightened [suspicion-based] threshold requirement could be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefit. First, commonplace decisions to search electronic devices might be opened to litigation challenging the reasons for the search. In addition to interfering with a carefully constructed border security system, the litigation could directly undermine national security by requiring the government to produce sensitive investigative and national security information to justify some of the most critical searches. Even a policy change entirely unenforceable by courts might be problematic; we have been presented with some noteworthy CBP and ICE success stories based on hard-to-articulate intuitions or hunches based on officer experience and judgment. Under a reasonable suspicion requirement, officers might hesitate to search an individual’s device without the presence of articulable factors capable of being formally defended, despite having an intuition or hunch based on experience that justified a search.

Translation:  “We don’t need to specify a reason why we are seizing and searching your property.”

Now many may have forgotten so I will provide you an extra reminder of the area the DHS would like to claim as free from that pesky 4th Amendment.

For more on that go back and read my article on it (dated 2008).  So think about what the department of homeland security is claiming as within their legal abilities, and then think long and hard about that map where they can put up “border inspection points” at will.  Think your safe just because you don’t regularly travel out of the country?  Get real.

Listen folks, you either have these rights or you don’t.  They’re not predicated on some theory that you surrender them because you want to do X.  NO!  If the government wants to search my personal effects, they must present a case including evidence that I have committed a crime, or that I intend to harm another.  *Note I said harm, the war on drugs needs to go to!*  The only way you end up with this current view of the law is through twisted perversion and a lackadaisical attitude that say “I don’t care, what’s it matter?”

Just because I want to fly to visit my friends in Nashville, doesn’t mean I surrender my 4th amendment rights and agree to have someone fondle me and my wife.  It’s horse crap and frankly if we don’t stop it, it will just get worse.  There’s two options for stopping it, we get the courts to do their damn job, or well, use your imagination for the second option.

News flash folks, in a free land bad people some times end up doing bad things.  Its comes with territory.  Honestly though even in your perfect police state, the crazy guy can still do damage, even more so due to the delayed response.  Grow a pair, embrace the responsibility and with it experience freedom.  It’s freaking AWESOME. –B]

SSCC Box Elder County

A former Box Elder County sheriff’s deputy has pleaded guilty to federal charges related to illegally strip-searching women at traffic stops.

Scott R. Womack, 37, admitted in U.S. District Court last week to two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. In exchange for his plea, prosecutors agreed to drop six other counts.

I’d be interested to know what the sentencing guidelines are for this.  But I can tell you even at the maximum sentence it is merely a slap on the wrist relative to what he’s done.

Why does he make the full count though beyond the lenient sentence?  Well his department covered for him.

According to one suit, several women complained to the Box Elder County Sheriff’s Office with similar stories about Womack. One woman says she called the office about the incident and was told: "I don’t think officer Womack is that type of person."

State Sponsored Criminal: Scott R. Womack

Because when you’re a cop, they can’t say no to what you tell them to do on the side of the road.  Their only option is to pray they get caught, even then they’ll only slap my wrist.

Ear Worm Wednesday–6/5/2013

If you’ve never heard the original with all it’s oddities.

Powerman 5000 – Whip It

Quote of the Day – Charlie Skelton (6/5/2013)

The same threat of “terrorism” was used to justify the no-pedestrian, no-stopping zones near the venue. The police laid out their logic: they had “no specific intelligence” regarding a terror threat. However, in recent incidents, such as Boston and Woolwich, there had been no intelligence prior to the attack. Therefore the lack of any threat of a terror attack fitted exactly the profile of a terror attack. The lack of a threat was a threat. Welcome to 1984.

Charlie Skelton – Bilderberg 2013: welcome to 1984

June 5th, 2013


[Translation.

We have found no actionable intelligence about you.  Therefor you must be a terrorist and an enemy combatant in the war on terror.  Please board the bus to Gitmo immediately or we will kill you.  Thanks!

-The Government

Someone nailed it on the head about “necessity.”  God help us because tell me, when was the last time a body of the state willfully surrendered powers it created? -B]

Accountabilibuddable–Edgar County

Well this put a smile on my face though I want to see some jail time go along with it.

The Illinois Supreme Court, on May 23, 2013, filed the opinion on former Edgar County State’s Attorney Michael McFatridge v Lisa Madigan. This case involved McFatridge, and whether the taxpayers were responsible for his litigation expenses after being sued in the course of his official duties.

This opinion means that the State of Illinois is not responsible for McFatridge’s attorney fees as the AG had determined the suit against him involved allegations of acts or omissions of intentional, wilful, or wanton misconduct. Since these civil suits were settled before coming to trial, there is no court or jury to determine that the actions of McFatridge were not of intentional, wilful, or wanton misconduct.

Given the power of a prosecutor he should be held personally accountable and it should take a court of law to prove his that he was acting in the interests of the state in good faith.  When you do something that breaks the rules, you should pay, not the tax payers.

h/t Rob Halvorson

I can’t stop laughing…

Saw this last night from a friend.

I was immediately reminded again after my cat flopped on my hands and arms while trying to type on my keyboard…  I love cats.

SSCC: Minneapolis

Despite nearly $14 million in payouts for alleged police misconduct over the past seven years, the Minneapolis Police Department rarely concluded that the officers involved did anything wrong, according to a Star Tribune analysis.

Boy, can you get more sponsored than that?  The state is going to pay the bill for you boy’s breaking the law, but we’re not going to correct you when you do it.

State Sponsored Criminal: The Entire Minneapolis PD

Because why punish someone for breaking the law when someone else, ostensibly the victim, is picking up the bill.

Quote of the Day–Phil Locke(6/3/2013)

Prosecutorial misconduct.  Well folks, this one is a hot button of mine.  Ask the average citizen, and they are totally unaware that such a thing ever happens.  After all, prosecutors are honorable people who are committed to ethics, justice, upholding the law, and to helping protect the public by ensuring that the  ”bad guys” are sternly dealt with, and if necessary, isolated from society, or even put to death.

Phil LockeProsecutorial Misconduct – What’s to be Done? A Call To Action

May 20th, 2013


[Yup, many seem to think prosecutors are some how infallible or some how looking out for the best interests of society, victims, or any number of things.  They’re only actually looking out for one thing, their careers.  I’ve had numerous other people come into my life recently who have had their own experiences with the local prosecutor, not to mention a run in from the prosecutorial side.

Nothing says stand up guy than saying there’s not enough evidence to pursue charges against someone for committing a crime even though they posted pictures of themselves committing said crime on Facebook.  *No this is neither a joke or exaggeration.  A man broken in and vandalized a property and took pictures of himself trespassing on said property as well vandalizing it.  The response of the prosecutors office was, “Not enough evidence to prosecute.”*

Remember that the next time you think the law will somehow provide justice.  Because as I’ve said before, “there is no correlation between the law and justice”.  Not to mention the prosecutorial motto, “It takes a good prosecutor to convict a guilty man, it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent one.”

This is a reminder of why I like my buddy Mike Jefferson so much. –B  ]

via Rob Halvorson…