Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
Secret court
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.
Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”
Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.
Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday) January 15, 2012
__________________________________________________
Criminalizing Intolerance
This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to “deter” some speech in the name of human rights.
Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.
This year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited nations to come to implement the resolution and “to build those muscles” needed “to avoid a return to the old patterns of division.” Those “old patterns” include instances in which writers and cartoonists became the targets of protests by religious groups. The most famous such incident occurred in 2005 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The result were worldwide protests in which Muslims reportedly killed more than 100 people — a curious way to demonstrate religious tolerance. While Western governments reaffirmed the right of people to free speech after the riots, they quietly moved toward greater prosecution of anti-religious speech under laws prohibiting hate speech and discrimination.
The OIC members have long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with “the principles of the sharia,” or Islamic law. The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing “negative racial and religious stereotyping” and asked states to “take effective measures” to combat incidents, including those of “religious intolerance.” Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18′s call for states to “criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” It also “condemns” statements that advocate “hostility” toward religion. Although the latest resolution refers to “incitement” rather than “defamation” of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.
The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of “intolerance.” Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of “respect and empathy and tolerance.” One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet’s name.
The core countries behind this effort show little tolerance or “empathy” themselves for opposing religions or viewpoints. Saudi Arabia will not allow the construction of a church in the kingdom, let alone allow public observance of other faiths. This year, the Saudi interior minister declared free speech to be an offense against God, declaring the kingdom “categorically [bans] all sorts of demonstrations, marches and sit-ins … as they contradict Islamic sharia law and the values and traditions of Saudi society.” Last week, Saudi courts sentenced an Australian Muslim to be flogged 500 times and sent to jail for “insulting” Muhammad.
What is more alarming, however, is the advancement of this agenda in Western countries. This year, Dutch legislator Geert Wilders secured a hard-fought acquittal from criminal charges after years of investigation and litigation for saying disrespectful things about Muslims. In Britain, a 15-year-old girl was arrested in November 2010 for burning a Koran. Other religions are now following suit and calling for the arrest of those who utter criticisms of their faiths. French fashion designer John Galliano was convicted in September of uttering anti-Semitic remarks in an outburst in a restaurant. In Russia, two prominent art curators in Moscow who faced up to three years in prison for showing art that insulted the Russian Orthodox Church were fined in 2010. In Britain, a 15-year-old boy was given a criminal summons for holding up a sign declaring “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.”
Although the OIC and the Obama administration claim fealty to free speech, the very premise of the meeting reveals a desire to limit it. Many delegates presuppose that speech threatens faith, when it has been religious orthodoxy that has long been the enemy of free speech. Conversely, free speech is the ultimate guarantee of religious freedom.
History has shown that once you yield to the temptation to regulate speech, you quickly find yourself on a slippery slope as other divisive subjects are added to the list. This year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared ominously that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.”
It seems that some have grown weary of free speech. After all, less speech means less division and discord. When the alternative is violent protests, silence is golden for governments. Of course, denying the right to speak does not create real tranquillity, only the illusion. But for these governments, including our own, an illusion may be as good as reality.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Los Angeles Times December 13, 2011
——————————————————–
How Much Privacy Do You Expect? The Death of Privacy in America
In December 1967, the Supreme Court issued what many consider to be one of its greatest and most eloquent decisions, in Katz v. United States. That case, which is celebrated as saving privacy in the United States, articulated the principle that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” The decision reversed a long erosion of privacy protection and required greater use of warrants by the government.
This past week, a different high court sat to hear a new privacy challenge in Jones v. United States. The issue this time is whether privacy protections are dying in the United States — and whether Katz may be to blame.
The Jones case involves one of the most ubiquitous pieces of technology in modern life: a Global Positioning System device. Antoine Jones was convicted in the District of Columbia in 2008 on drug charges after police followed him for 28 days with a secretly installed GPS device that monitored his location.
This surveillance continued after a warrant had expired. But the Obama administration insists that no warrant should be required for the government to track the movements of citizens with such devices. The administration says that the new technology merely captures what can be observed, albeit in far greater detail. But the technology could allow the government to follow an almost limitless number of citizens in real time, all the time. If successful in its argument, the Justice Department would expand the powers of the government to spy on citizens to what Justice Stephen Breyer called Orwellian proportions.
Privacy appears to be in a vicious 40-year cycle. In Katz, the court was dealing with decades of increasing surveillance under the “trespass doctrine,” established in 1928, which allowed the government to conduct warrantless surveillance so long as it did not physically trespass on the property of a citizen. When the court created the ill-conceived doctrine, technology was already making the trespass test meaningless. With new devices, agents could listen to conversations without entering a home or office. This is why the court’s pronouncement that the Constitution “protects people, not places” was such a victory for civil liberties. But what if the people don’t care?
Under the Katz test, warrants would be needed when there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy” by a citizen. But that standard laid the foundation for the demise of privacy. As we come to expect less privacy, we are entitled to less of it.
As warrantless surveillance rises, our expectations fall, allowing such surveillance to become more common. The result is a move toward limitless police powers. Those declining expectations are at the heart of the Obama administration’s argument in Jones, where it insists that the government is free to track citizens without warrants because citizens expect to be monitored.
The United States was once defined by an intense commitment to privacy, with far greater protection than was found in some of our closest allies, such as Britain. That was already changing, however, when the Katz decision was handed down. The erosion of privacy sped up as new rulings joined new technology in creating more transparency in society in the 1970s and 1980s. The court chipped away at citizens’ expectations with a long line of exceptions to the rules for when a warrant is necessary — allowing the government to pat down citizens, review their bank records, intercept the telephone numbers they dial, search their cars, search travelers at borders and airports, and perform an array of other searches deemed “reasonable.” Those exceptions have now swallowed the rule, so that more searches today are done without warrants than with them.
Beyond those exceptions, we are living with a growing network of public surveillance cameras on highways and city streets. Chicago alone has installed about 10,000 such cameras in the past few years. Britain still surpasses the United States with a state and private network of 1.85 million closed-circuit TV cameras. These systems often feature facial-recognition software that not only records the movement of citizens but can identify individuals.
Privacy is also under assault from private companies. In the years since the Katz decision, security cameras and other technology have multiplied; companies routinely watch customers and employees. Video surveillance is a $3.2 billion industry, one-third of the overall security market, according to 2007 data from the Security Industry Association.
When I teach Katz and privacy in a law school classroom, a university sign warns everyone that “this room is subject to surveillance.” It is a telling reminder of how, even in discussing the loss of privacy, the lecture is being taped by the institution. Even elementary and high school students are now accustomed to being under surveillance on their buses and in their schools. For these children, continuous monitoring is just part of life.
Today, we are under surveillance as we drive from our houses in the morning, when we stop to buy coffee, when we return to the road and when we enter our workplaces, where our phones are often monitored and our offices surveilled by video cameras. The monitoring only ends at home, when we close our doors — if we’re lucky. In a 2001 case, the court ruled that the government couldn’t use thermal imaging to track people inside their homes without a warrant, but that was a 5 to 4 vote.
After 9/11, President George W. Bush greatly expanded the scope of warrantless surveillance, and President Obama has maintained and even increased those powers. Citizens have largely accepted the false premise that privacy is the enemy of security and have supported ever-widening surveillance powers. The problem is that privacy remains an abstraction, while crime, or terrorism, is a concrete threat.
The Jones case, however, highlights the flaw in our legal understanding of privacy. The Obama administration is arguing that citizens expect that their second-by-second movements can be tracked. If the government goes too far, the administration told the court, the solution is not found in the Constitution but in Congress. That’s a dangerous view, however, as Congress has historically been indifferent, if not hostile, to individual rights. Few members are willing pass laws to protect privacy over security demands, leaving many arguing for small government while ignoring the Big Brother that dwells within it.
Under Katz, it turns out, the problem is not with the government but with us. We are evolving into the perfect cellophane citizens for a new transparent society. We have grown accustomed to living under observation, even reassured by it. So much so that few are likely to notice, let alone mourn, privacy’s passing.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday), November 13, 2011
——————————————————
THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VIDEOTAPE POLICE
Twenty years ago, as Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles police officers, a private citizen in a nearby apartment turned on his video camera. Largely because of that tape, four officers were criminally charged. In July, a homeless schizophrenic man died after a police beating in Fullerton. Audio from a cellphone video caught Kelly Thomas’ cries for his father and helped force an investigation that resulted in a first-degree murder charge against one police officer.
The increasing availability of cellphones and video cameras has fundamentally changed police abuse cases, creating vital evidence in cases that were once dismissed as matters of conflicting accounts between officers and citizens. With that change, however, has come a backlash from officers who, despite court rulings upholding the right of citizens to tape police in public, have been threatening or arresting people for the “crime” of recording them. In many states, prosecutors have fought to support such claims and put citizens in jail for videotaping officers, even in cases of police abuse.
In New York this year, Emily Good was arrested after videotaping the arrest of a man at a traffic stop in Rochester. Good was filming from her frontyard; an officer is heard saying to her, “I don’t feel safe with you standing behind me, so I’m going to ask you to go into your house.” When she continued to film, the officer said, “You seem very anti-police,” and arrested her.
DOCUMENT: 1st Circuit Court decision: Citizens’ right to record
In Illinois last month, Brad Williams filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department because, he said, he was beaten by police in response to his filming an officer holding and dragging a man down the street from inside a moving squad car. Ironically, Chicago has rejected complaints about the installation of thousands of cameras in the city that film citizens in public for use in prosecutions.
In Maryland in July, Anthony Graber got a well-deserved speeding ticket, but his real mistake was posting footage from his motorcycle helmet-cam on YouTube. It showed an irate off-duty, out-of-uniform officer pulling him over with his gun drawn. Prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment against Graber on felony wiretap charges, which carry a 16-year prison sentence.
In Boston in August, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unambiguously that the Constitution protects citizen videographers filming in public. In that case, attorney Simon Glik was walking past the Boston Common on Oct. 1, 2007, when he came upon three Boston officers arresting a man. Glik turned on his cellphone camera after hearing a witness say the police were being abusive. An officer told Glik to turn off his camera. When Glik refused, he was arrested for violation of the state wiretap statute, disturbing the peace and, for good measure, aiding in the escape of a prisoner.
The charges were dismissed after a public outcry, but in a later civil rights case, city attorneys fought to deny citizens the right to videotape police. The court rejected Boston’s arguments and found that the police had denied Glik his 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
But other federal judges might not be so sure. Take Richard Posner, the intellectual leader of conservative judges and scholars who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. Posner shocked many last month when he cut off an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed suit to challenge an Illinois law preventing audio recording of police without their consent.
The ACLU lawyer had uttered just 14 words when Posner barked: “I’m not interested, really, in what you want to do with these recordings of peoples’ encounters with the police.” Posner then added his concerns about meddling citizens: “Once all this stuff can be recorded, there’s going to be a lot more of this snooping around by reporters and bloggers…. I’m always suspicious when the civil liberties people start telling the police how to do their business.”
Many judges may privately share Posner’s view of such confrontations. And the near-total silence of politicians in dealing with the question of the public’s right to record what they see and hear suggests that many legislators may also find these cases inconvenient.
Actions against citizen videographers run against not just the Constitution but good public policy. Yet, without a videotape, Rodney King would have been just another guy with a prior record claiming abuse, against the word of multiple officers.
The outcome once was all but inevitable: no tape, no case. As long as police abuse is out of sight, it can also be out of mind. If successful, the backlash against citizens recording police could guarantee that Rodney King is never repeated — the officers’ trial, that is.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Los Angeles Times, November 8, 2011
_____________________
The news this week that a 20-year-old woman had accused teen idol Justin Bieber of fathering her child sent tabloid reporters into collective hyperventilation.
For lawyers, however, the most interesting aspect of this claim was that it could only be made by Mariah Yeater confessing to statutory rape. The problem is that Bieber was just 16 years old in California where the age of consent is 18. Thus, Yeater would only prevail by establishing that he is a rape victim and she is a statutory rapist.
While Bieber denies any sexual encounter with Yeater (and indeed ever meeting her), Los Angeles Police Commander Andrew Smith has said that, given the publicity, “Of course we’ll look into it.” In the meantime, her attorney insists that they will go forward despite any statutory rape charge to secure paternity liability against Bieber. It is true that paternity laws focus on fatherhood rather than adulthood in determining such liability.
Certainly, if history is any measure, the threat of a statutory rape charge has not been a major deterrent in celebrity circles. The sad truth is that statutory rape is nothing new in Hollywood. Errol Flynn was well known for his preference for under-aged girls, which he referred to as his “San Quentin Quail.” He was prosecuted for statutory rape in 1943 but acquitted after jurors learned that one of the girls had had a prior abortion.
Likewise, Charlie Chaplin was also repeatedly accused of affairs with under-aged girls and actually married two 16-year-olds in successive marriages in 1918 and 1924.
It was a surprise to many, not the least of whom was Roman Polanski, when prosecutors charged the director in 1977 with statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. After all, in Hollywood, Polanski was the ultimate alpha male in a city built to glorify and serve celebrities.
The Bieber case is a type of Roman Polanski case in the reverse. Here the celebrity is allegedly the victim and the groupie is the aggressor. Of course, the notion of a celebrity as a victim can seem counter-intuitive. After all, celebrities of any age are viewed as powerful — the top of our food chain in a star-obsessed society. Moreover, the mystique surrounding celebrities makes them seem ageless as if a Justin Bieber or a Macaulay Culkin are simply playing children. They are members of a monolithic genus of humans who transcend age or notions of propriety.
In the case of Bieber, his alleged adult paramour insists that he was a willing participant and that they were mutually attracted to each other when she asked to meet him after a concert on the night of October 25, 2010. That instant connection, according to Yeager, led to a 30-second tryst in a bathroom. What is most striking is that there is no indication that she views herself as pursuing a child for sex. Perhaps the thinking goes, he is not a child, but a celebrity. By extension, she is not a child rapist, but a type of sexual celebrity tourist.
The law, however, views it differently. There is a reason why the age of consent and the age of majority are set relatively high. At age 16, state law does not view a young person as having the maturity to make decisions of consent. This is the point of statutory rape. While consensual, one party does not have the capacity to consent. In California, someone more than three years older than a sexual partner who is under the age of consent can be charged with a felony. In this case, Yeater’s attorney insists that she was within three years of Bieber’s age — making her crime only a misdemeanor.
Historically, prosecutors seem reluctant to bring actions under the celebrity-as-victim theory. For example, in 2007, there was extensive media coverage of the pregnancy of then 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears, sister of Britney Spears and a television star in her own right. Few seemed to note that the father, Casey Aldridge, had fathered a child with a child.
The problem is that prosecutors are not so reluctant to prosecute other alleged statutory rape cases of non-celebrities. While some states have passed “Romeo and Juliet” laws that exclude teenage lovers, other states continue to prosecute minors who have sex with other minors. Often it is the boys who are prosecuted and given records as sex offenders.
For example, in 2005, Genarlow Wilson, 17, was tried for the rape of a 15-year-old girl in Georgia. While he was ultimately convicted of aggravated child molestation, he was given a 10-year sentence and served two years before a court struck down the sentence.
Regardless of whether Bieber is a deadbeat dad or a rape victim or neither, this controversy could have a positive impact if it leads to a reexamination of statutory rape laws for celebrities and non-celebrities alike.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
November 5, 2011
_________________________________________________________________________________
Undo the Stolen Valor Act to Protect Free Speech
Soon after he was elected to the board of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Claremont, Xavier Alvarez introduced himself at a public meeting with a lie. “I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he said. “Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.”
That was not Alvarez’s first falsehood about himself. He’d also claimed to have played professional hockey and to have been involved in the Iranian hostage crisis. But it was the Medal of Honor lie that put Alvarez in violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law passed by Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush that prohibits anyone from falsely claiming “to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Alvarez’s “semper fraud” led to a conviction, which was later thrown out by the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The court rightly found that the Stolen Valor Act was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. Now, ominously, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review that decision.
We have always had fraud laws making it illegal to claim military service or honors to receive financial benefits. Congress, however, wanted to be able to jail people for just telling a lie. While the Stolen Valor Act concerns lying about a military medal, the Alvarez case could establish a legal principle allowing Congress to criminalize virtually any lie – allowing a sweeping new form of regulation of speech in the United States. Politicians have long denounced journalists, political opponents, and whistleblowers as liars, but they could now enact laws that would define some statements as criminal lies subject to arrest.
Lying about military service is a common fib heard in barrooms and board rooms around the country. Traditionally, when people tell such lies, we condemn them. Authors have lost readers, politicians have lost votes, employees have lost jobs when the lies come to light. And sometimes we even forgive them, as was the case with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal who won a U.S. Senate seat despite being criticized for falsely claiming to have served in the Vietnam War.
The notion that we should send braggarts and liars to jail may seem odd, but it is part of a long and dangerous trend of criminalizing actions that could be dealt with in other ways. In Texas, lying about the size of a fish in a fishing derby is now a crime, as is snacking on a subway in Washington D.C. Politicians increasingly are insisting that their pet policy peeves should warrant criminal sanctions.
The Stolen Valor Act, however, is a direct attack on free speech and therefore far more dangerous.
It would be comforting to think that no federal judge could believe that the law is constitutional, and the Ninth Circuit did toss it out. But on the original three-judge panel that heard the case in that court, one jurist was willing, if not eager, to give the government the right to arrest citizens for lying. That judge, Jay Bybee, is all too familiar to civil libertarians for his infamous role in coming up with a now-discredited legal justification for the Bush torture program.
It all seems ripped from the writings of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984: Bybee, a man accused of falsely bending the law to justify torture, now is a judge arguing in favor of jailing citizens for lies.
Bybee is inexplicably being supported in his assault on free speech by the Obama administration. The administration was not bound to appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision, but it has, brushing aside free speech concerns in its insistence that a “nation’s gratitude for the patriotism and courage” is at stake.
President Obama is likely to find jurists receptive to his point of view on the Supreme Court. It seems unlikely that the justices voting to accept the case did so simply to amplify the views of the Ninth Circuit – the most often reversed circuit in the country. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all viewed as proponents of police power and opponents of some free speech values. Even some justices on the left may not be reliable votes, including Obama’s nominee Sonya Sotomayor, who was opposed by some civil libertarians for her past rulings against free speech rights.
The power to criminalize lies naturally includes the right to define a lie. Giving the government such power would allow it to target “liars” who it portrays as endangering or dishonoring society. It is enough to make Big Brother blush.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University.
Los Angeles Times
October 20, 2011
—————————————————————————
Last week, Americans saw a curious sight for a free nation: their president ordered the killing of two U.S. citizens without a trial or even a formal charge and the public applauded. President Obama never denied that he told the military to kill Anwar al-Awlaki on his sole discretion a year ago. They did so last week in Yemen – and killed U.S.-born cleric Samir Khan for good measure. Two U.S. citizens killed because a president unilaterally declared them to be part of a terrorist organization.
Before the killing, Obama successfully fought efforts by al-Awlaki’s family to have a court review the legality for the planned assassination of their kin. Due to reported prior associations of the U.S. government with al-Awlaki, it was a hearing that the intelligence agencies likely did not want to occur. At the time, the Justice Department argued that if al-Awlaki wanted judicial review, he should file with the clerk’s office himself – despite an order for him to be shot on sight. The Obama administration succeeded in arguing that the planned killing of a citizen on this hit list was a “political question,” not a legal question.
While few people mourn the passing of a figure like al-Awlaki who was accused being a leader in al Qaeda, they should mourn the passing of basic constitutional protections afforded to all citizens. So a president can now kill a citizen without publicly naming him as a target, stating the basis for his killing, or even acknowledge his killing once it has been carried out. Even if one assumes citizens would only be killed outside the country, it would mean that a your life becomes dispensable the minute you step a foot over one of our borders.
At the same time, the government has expanded the definition of terrorism and material support for terrorism, which in turn further expands the scope of possible targets. When confronted on the lack of knowledge of who is on this list and the basis for their killing, the Obama administration simply says that citizens must trust their president. It is the very definition of authoritarian power – and Americans appear to have developed a taste for it.
Obama’s hit list is a continuation of a policy defended by George W. Bush, who ordered an attack that killed U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, in Yemen in 2002. While Bush wanted Yemeni Abu Ali al-Harithi (the alleged mastermind behind the 2000 bombing of the U.S. Cole) dead, Derwish was riding in the car with him (as well as four other individuals). Derwish was not even on a hit list, but U.S. intelligence officials said it did not matter because they were authorized to kill Americans in such operations.
The sight of free people applauding the president’s discretionary killing of citizens would have horrified the framers of our Constitution. In conflict with a system based on checks and balances, Obama controls not just who will die but whether a court can review his decisions. Even if the family of these men were to try to sue for wrongful death, the Obama administration insists that they have the discretion to block such cases under the “military and state secrets privilege.” Thus, even if a president arbitrarily were to order the killing of a citizen, neither the victim nor his family could challenge the matter before an independent court (assuming they even knew about the order).
Notably, in the face of this extrajudicial killing of two citizens, Democrats who claim to be civil libertarians like Dianne Feinstein have cheered the president – creating a record for the next president to expand on these acquiesced powers.
No republic can long stand if a president retains the unilateral authority to kill citizens who he deems a danger to the country. What is left is a magnificent edifice of laws and values that, to quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth, is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
————————————-
Separation of Church and State? Not on the 2012 Campaign Trial
On Oct. 7, 1801, three men wrote to the new president of the United States on behalf of their Baptist congregation in Connecticut. The letter from the Danbury Baptist Association is most famous not for its content but for the response it generated from Thomas Jefferson, who described“a wall of separation between Church & State.” The Baptists’ letter, however, deserves far greater consideration, particularly in our current political climate.
Some 210 years ago, this deeply religious group stepped forward to denounce faith-based politics and “those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion.” As reflected in the letter, it is a struggle that has existed from the nation’s founding, with politicians periodically calling upon the faithful to testify through their votes.
Those calls have generally triggered concern over the entanglement of government and religion. When the Catholic John F. Kennedy was opposed as a “papist,” for instance, he defused the criticism with a speech on the separation of church and state.
Much of that concern seemed to vanish, however, with George W. Bush and his faith-based politics. Now, religious and even sectarian pitches have become commonplace and expected on the campaign trail, even as more Americans identify themselves as secular or non-denominational. The fears of the Danbury Baptists appear to have been realized, with political campaigns, federal programs and judicial decisions moving away from a clear separation of church and state.
On any given night, listening to the presidential candidates could easily lead voters to believe that they are listening to a campaign for an ecclesiastical rather than presidential office. It is now expected that candidates will offer accounts of personal salvation and implied divine guidance. At a speech in mid-September at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, for instance, Texas Gov. Rick Perry spoke of his “faith journey” and told students to “trust that God wouldn’t have put you here unless he had a unique plan for your life.” Two weeks ago, Perry extended a call for people to pray for President Obama and ask God “to give him wisdom, to open his eyes” to save the country.
Newt Gingrich has set out to claim his share of the faithful by attacking the faithless. In a speech in March, he promised to protect America from atheists, secularists and, incongruously, Muslims: “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, [my grandchildren] will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”
Meanwhile, former senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Michele Bachmann have spoken out against the very notion of separation of church and state. Bachmann told a large youth ministry group a few years ago that religion is supposed to be part of government: “[Public schools] are teaching children that there is separation of church and state, and I am here to tell you that is a myth. That’s not true.” Santorum has recounted how, as a Catholic, he was “appalled” by Kennedy’s “radical” statement that he believed in a wall of separation.
Mitt Romney, as a candidate on the national stage, has had to thread the needle of appealing to the religious right while avoiding a backlash over his Mormon faith. The result has been some awkward moments for the former Massachusetts governor, including a speech during his 2008 campaign in which he assured voters that “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.”
In the 2008 race, Democrats moved to reclaim religious voters by adopting religious rhetoric and theopolitical policies. Churchgoers had represented 41 percent of the electorate in 2004, and 61 percent of them voted for Bush. Obama set out to change that percentage in favor of his own party and enthusiastically embraced faith-based politics. He proclaimed his intention to be “an instrument of God” and to create “a Kingdom right here on Earth.” Even the title of his book “The Audacity of Hope” was taken from sermons by his controversial spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
Like his Republican counterparts, Obama has denounced secularists — and, implicitly, their view of complete separation of church and state. He has chastised people who object to the religiosity that has become the norm in American politics. “Secularists,” he once insisted, “are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”
After taking office, Obama expanded the scope of Bush’s controversial faith-based programs. At his inauguration, he attempted to appeal to conservative religious voters by asking minister Rick Warren to give the invocation. Warren’s book “The Purpose Driven Life” seemed perfect for Obama’s faith-infused, purpose-driven politics.
This is all a far cry from Jefferson, who refused to issue Thanksgiving Day proclamations because he thought it would violate the establishment clause. Later, Andrew Jackson also declined to declare days of Thanksgiving or fasting out of the same concern. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and approved by George Washington and the Senate, included a statement that “the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
It is doubtful that Washington and Adams, let alone Jefferson, would fare well today espousing such sentiments. Indeed, tea party favorite Sarah Palin has said that “hearing any leader declare that America isn’t a Christian nation” is positively “mind-boggling.”
In today’s theopolitical world, it is hard to see where God ends and Mammon begins. For example, Perry was asked this summer not just whether he prayed but what he prayed for. Easy, he responded. He asks God to guide Obama to “turn back the health-care law . . . ask that his EPA back down these regulations that are causing businesses to hesitate to spend money.” While some may find it difficult to imagine praying for pollution, that misses the point. The key for Perry was to erase the distinction between prayer and politics.
Emphasizing religion in politics tends to deemphasize the responsibility of politicians for their decisions. Last spring, Perry was facing a devastating drought, state-wide wildfires and criticism that Texas had underfunded firefighting units. He issued an official order proclaiming three “Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.”
In this climate, it is remarkable to read the letter of the Danbury Baptists, warning that it “is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order.”
One problem with mixing religion and politics is that it quickly becomes a competition for demonstrating fealty to the faith, including promises of favoritism for mainstream religions or, conversely, discrimination against minorities. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has spoken of not wanting Americans “to lose our Judeo-Christian identity” and said earlier this year that he would not be comfortable appointing Muslims to his Cabinet — a position he later withdrew and apologized for after meeting with Muslim leaders.
Despite polls showing that 66percent of Americans support “a clear separation of church and state,” those Americans do not seem to be motivating politicians or shaping politics. Indeed, Democratic strategists believe that secularists have nowhere to turn — which means Obama can court religious voters without fear of losing others’ support. The result is that the 34 percent who do not support separation seem to drive the political agenda.
The danger of explicit appeals to faith in politics isn’t the establishment of an official religion; that remains highly unlikely. Rather, faith-based politics can become faith-based laws that enforce morality codes, expand public subsidies for religious institutions or sideline religious (or non-religious) minorities. Most important, our political-religious climate threatens to replace a campaign for the best policies with a contest of the most pious.
As our politicians move away from separation principles, the courts inevitably follow suit. We now appear to have (or be close to having) a majority of anti-separation Supreme Court justices who favor a type of state-supported monotheism. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2005 dissent that there is a clear majority on the court that opposes “the demonstrably false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion.” He noted that “the three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam — which combined account for 97.7% of all believers — are monotheistic.”
Even as the world recoils from the extremism of religious-based groups and political systems in places such as Iran and Pakistan, the United States is gradually erasing the bright line that has existed for decades between religion and government. While religious instability and strife in countries around the globe should reinforce the values of separation and the message of the Danbury Baptists, instead politicians are selling themselves as the Judeo-Christian answer to a troubled world; confident, as Perry put it recently, that “He has me here at a time such as this.”
Politicized piety is at the heart of the 2012 campaign. We need to rebuild the wall between church and state that has long protected us from ourselves. The question is: Do we have enough faith in secular government to get it done?
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Washington Post, Sunday, October 2, 2011
———————————-
Below is today’s column in The Los Angeles Times on the record of Barack Obama on civil liberties and his impact on the civil liberties movement in the United States.
OBAMA: A DISASTER FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
With the 2012 presidential election before us, the country is again caught up in debating national security issues, our ongoing wars and the threat of terrorism. There is one related subject, however, that is rarely mentioned: civil liberties.
Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.
Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.
However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the “just following orders” defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.
Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.
But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.
It’s almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama’s position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama’s policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama’s policies have become secondary to his persona.
Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government’s burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that “the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals’ rights and freedoms.” Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not “soft” on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.
This calculation may be wrong. Obama may have flown by the fail-safe line, especially when it comes to waterboarding. For many civil libertarians, it will be virtually impossible to vote for someone who has flagrantly ignored the Convention Against Torture or its underlying Nuremberg Principles. As Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. have admitted, waterboarding is clearly torture and has been long defined as such by both international and U.S. courts. It is not only a crime but a war crime. By blocking the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for torture, Obama violated international law and reinforced other countries in refusing investigation of their own alleged war crimes. The administration magnified the damage by blocking efforts of other countries like Spain from investigating our alleged war crimes. In this process, his administration shredded principles on the accountability of government officials and lawyers facilitating war crimes and further destroyed the credibility of the U.S. in objecting to civil liberties abuses abroad.
In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University.
The Los Angeles Times
September 29, 2011
___________________________
SAVE THE CONGRESSIONAL PAGES
In summer 1977, I walked on to the floor of the House of Representatives for the first time as a congressional page. Pushing through the chamber’s heavy doors, a scared kid from Chicago, I found myself in the midst of a boisterous debate that had members and pages running in every direction. I was 15 years old, and it was the beginning of an experience that would shape my life as it has the lives of thousands of other kids over the course of nearly 200 years.
That tradition is about to end without debate or discussion.
This week, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) suddenly eliminated the House page program without warning or consultation — purportedly to save $5 million a year. The decision came after years of offers by former pages to take over the program and generate private support that could put it on more solid financial footing. Pelosi and Boehner have both consistently ignored such proposals.
At a time when Congress and the White House are burning through hundreds of billions of dollars to wage three wars, it’s hard to believe that saving a mere $5 million is really the motive for ending the program. There has long been a suspicion that the House leadership would like to discontinue having pages for a different reason: to end the scandals caused by a few deranged members.
It’s true there have been problems with the program, but they have been due almost entirely to the members themselves, including some who sexually harassed or had sex with the teenage pages. But a program run by former pages would be a far better deterrent to abusive members, since we would not hesitate to address alleged misconduct.
Boehner and Pelosi have also said that pages are an anachronism and that technology has supplanted their role. Yet the leadership chose to simply announce the termination of a nearly 200-year-old institution without even considering the possibility of changes to the role the pages play.
While it’s true that messages and documents are now usually transmitted electronically, carrying messages was never the sole role pages performed — nor the primary reason for having them. The page system has allowed the rising generation to be present as Congress debates the laws that will shape their future.
As a page, I met and worked with some of my heroes, including Barbara Jordan and Mo Udall. And then there came the day when Hubert Humphrey came to speak on the House floor. I adored Humphrey, and it apparently showed. A Democratic member saw me and said, “Jonathan, I think you deserve a seat today.”
Under the shocked eye of my supervisor, the member sat me down next to him to hear Humphrey. Afterward, he pushed me forward, past waiting members, and said “Hubert, I have someone who would like to say something to you, Page Jonathan Turley.” I froze, unable to speak. Humphrey smiled warmly, took my hand in his and said, “Well, Jonathan, you think about what you want to say and come by my office.” To my surprise, his office actually called and invited me to stop in. But shortly before I was to do so, in January 1978, Humphrey died.
After hearing the news late that night, I sat on the Supreme Court steps facing the Capitol and sobbed. A guard came to shoo me away, but on seeing my grief, he instead just patted me on the shoulder and told me to stay as long as I wanted.
Among the ranks of former pages are many who went on to become senators or congressmen, business leaders (including Bill Gates) and other successful professionals. But whatever they went on to do, all the former pages I know carry deep and indelible marks from their service — among them, a sense of idealism that doesn’t fade.
The loss of such a unique institution is hard to quantify. The page program doesn’t generate campaign contributions or other benefits that motivate members and lobbyists. But it profoundly affects those who participate.
One of my most lasting memories of being a page was the first time I was asked to raise the flag that flies above the House when it is in session. I climbed a rickety wooden ladder leading to the top of the Capitol, and there came upon a wall with the names of pages going back many decades. I then opened up a hatch and walked out on a plank no more than a foot wide to reach the flag pole. After focusing on not falling through the aged wood, I reached the pole and looked up. I was overwhelmed.
The sun had just risen over Washington, turning the sky a radiant red. Below me the members were resuming a loud and passionate debate over the neutron bomb. I stood there in the quiet of the morning with the flag flapping in the wind, the Washington monument and Lincoln Memorial stretched out before me. The connection I felt was not just to the pages who had stood there before me but to our unique republic. I felt both the raw, unlimited promise of a free nation and the obligation to serve it.
Congress should not end one of its most inspirational institutions after two centuries with less fanfare than a deleted earmark. The page program deserved better. It can be preserved if the House leadership will only give us a chance.
Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington Law School and is a former House leadership page.
Los Angeles Times August 11, 2011
_____________________________
PRIVACY WITHOUT POLITICS: WHY THE BROWN LAWSUIT IS NOT ABOUT POLYGAMY BUT PRIVACY
Since the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, Americans have enjoyed unprecedented freedom in their lifestyles and private relationships. The decision held that states could no longer use the criminal code for social engineering, dictating the most intimate decisions of citizens in their choice of partners and relations. But even as states have abandoned laws criminalizing homosexual and adulterous relations, they have continued to prosecute one group of consenting adults: polygamists.
Last week in Utah, one such family filed a challenge to the state’s criminal law. That family — a man, Kody Brown, and his four wives and 16 children — is the focus of a reality program on the cable channel TLC called “Sister Wives.” One of the marriages is legal and the others are what the family calls “spiritual.” They are not asking for the state to recognize their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone.
Utah and eight other states make polygamy a crime, while 49 states have bigamy statutes that can be used to prosecute plural families. And they’re not a small population: the number of fundamentalist Mormon or Christian polygamists alone has been estimated to be as high as 50,000. When Muslim as well as nonreligious plural families are considered, the real number is likely many times greater.
The case of the Browns, for whom I am lead counsel, is a clear example of unacceptable government intrusion. The family has not been accused of child abuse or other crime, in almost a year of being under criminal investigation. With such allegations stripped away, the only thing remaining is a family that does not look like those of other Utah citizens. The question is whether that is enough to declare them criminals.
While widely disliked, if not despised, polygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society. It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.
One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under Lawrence.
The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
Justice Scalia is right in one respect, though not intentionally. Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. Otherwise he’s dead wrong. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.
Others have opposed polygamy on the grounds that, while the Browns believe in the right of women to divorce or leave such unions, some polygamous families involve the abuse or domination of women. Of course, the government should prosecute abuse wherever it is found. But there is nothing uniquely abusive about consenting polygamous relationships. It is no more fair to prosecute the Browns because of abuse in other polygamous families than it would be to hold a conventional family liable for the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases each year in monogamous families.
Ultimately, the question is whether polygamy is allowed under the privacy principles articulated in Lawrence. The court did not state exclusions for unpopular relationships. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter” but rather “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.”
The Browns are quite similar. They want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith.
Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia. We should fight for privacy as an inclusive concept, benefiting everyone in the same way. Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.
New York Times: July 20, 2011
____________________________________________________
Justice Thomas’ Dangerous Conceit
Louis XIV of France was infamous for his view that there was no distinction between himself and the state, allegedly proclaiming “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the State”). That notorious merging of personality with an institution was again on display in a February speech by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before the conservative Federalist Society.
Thomas used the friendly audience to finally address a chorus of criticism over his alleged conflicts of interest and violation of federal disclosure rules concerning his wife’s income. Rather than answer these questions, however, Thomas denounced his critics as “undermining” the court and endangering the country by weakening core institutions.
In January, Common Cause released documents showing that Thomas had attended events funded by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch. Thomas was even featured in Koch promotional material — along with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others — for events that sought financial and political support for conservative political causes.
Worse yet, Common Cause discovered that Thomas had failed to disclose a source of income for 13 years on required federal forms. Thomas stated that his wife, Virginia, had no income, when in truth she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from conservative organizations, including roughly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Thomas reported “none” in answering specific questions about “spousal non-investment income” on annual forms — answers expressly made “subject to civil and criminal sanctions.”
In the interests of full disclosure, I was consulted by Common Cause before the release of the Thomas documents. I found the violations regarding Virginia Thomas’ income particularly alarming.
Virginia Thomas was receiving money from groups that had expressed direct interest in the outcome of cases that came before her husband, including Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, in which the court in 2010 struck down limitations on corporate contributions to elections.
A justice is expressly required by federal law to recuse himself from any case “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This law specifically requires recusal when he knows that “his spouse … has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
The financial disclosure forms are meant to assist the public in determining conflicts of interest. Though Thomas clearly could argue that his wife’s ties to these organizations were not grounds for recusal, he denied the court and the public the ability to fully evaluate those conflicts at the time. Instead, Thomas misled the public for years on the considerable wealth he and his wife were accumulating from ideological groups.
After Common Cause detailed the violations, Thomas simply wrote a brief letter to the court saying that the information was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”
It is unclear how Thomas will rule in the next case in which an individual is accused of a failure to disclose on tax or other government forms. Thomas is viewed as one of the least sympathetic justices to such defenses. Indeed, last year, he joined a decision in Jerman vs. Carlisle that rejected a defense from debt collectors that their violations were due to misunderstandings of the requirements of federal law and just “bona fide errors.” In rejecting the claim that such errors were not intentional, the court reminded the defendants that “we have long recognized the common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally.”
None of these issues, however, was addressed by Thomas in his speech to the Federalist Society. Instead, Thomas suggested that his critics were endangering freedom by undermining his authority and, by extension, the authority of the court. He insisted that his wife was being attacked because she believes in the same things he does and because they were “focused on defending liberty.” He added:
“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that — that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties…. And that’s long after I’m gone, and that could be either a short or a long time, but you’re younger, and it’s still going to be a necessity to protect the liberties that you enjoy now in this country.”
That was Thomas’ Louis XIV moment. Thomas appears to have finally merged his own personality with the institution itself. Thus, any criticism — even criticism that he is harming the court — is an attack on the institution. It is more than an embarrassing conceit; it can be a dangerous delusion for any justice.
The Supreme Court is not composed of nine Atlas-like jurists holding up justice in the United States. Rather, the foundations are laid in the rule of law, which speaks to all Americans in the same voice. The court is “credible,” to use Thomas’ word, because it is not the extension of the jurists themselves but the law that they are required to follow.
“I am the Court” sounds little better than “I am the State.” We will continue to “enjoy” the liberties of this nation not by the grace or grandeur of Justice Thomas but by the simple triumph of principle over personalities.
Jonathan Turley is as professor of law at George Washington University, where he teaches a class on the Supreme Court.
Los Angeles Times (Sunday) March 6, 2011
————————————————————-
Our Ford Pinto health care law takes a hit
By Jonathan Turley
After this week’s decision striking down the entire federal health care law as unconstitutional, the White House went into a full convulsive rage at Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida.
Borrowing an attack that has more often been heard from Republican administrations, Stephanie Cutter, a senior adviser to President Obama, issued a statement denouncing Vinson as a “judicial activist.” That charge was quickly picked up by Democratic lawmakers. The evidence cited for this charge was the fact that Vinson “declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the (individual mandate) provision,” which requires every citizen to buy health insurance.
What the White House does not mention is that it played a game of chicken over health care with the court and lost a critical battle in Florida. Instead of inserting a “severability clause” designed to protect an act from this type of global rejection, the legislation was rammed through a divided Congress with diminishing public support.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.
Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.
We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY’s founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.
The absence of the clause was just one of the flaws in this legislation, which even sponsors now admit must be amended to address serious problems ranging from paperwork overload to uncertain costs to questions over what plans will count under the law. Even for some of us who support national health care, the bill unnecessarily triggered the constitutional fight that led to its rejection in two federal courts. There were alternatives to achieve the same end, but what was lacking was a willingness to reconsider these provisions with the approach of the new Congress.
A standard feature
Yet the failure of lawmakers to insert a boilerplate severability clause is the most puzzling. The standard clause — pardon the legalese — states, “If any particular provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.” It is generally on a short list of basic elements for legislation, such as putting a title and preamble on a bill.
The national health care bill contained such a provision, but it was removed before passage. Of course, even without such a clause, judges can still avoid striking down an entire law and confine their rulings to a specific provision. That is what Judge Henry Hudson did last year in Virginia after finding the individual mandate unconstitutional. Hudson was right to do so, in my view, but that does not make Vinson a judicial activist.
The charge of activism sounds like the lament of every bad gambler after being discouraged from playing a high-risk hand.
The risk was always there
Many — including yours truly — had raised concerns over the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Even the respected Congressional Research Service noted that such objections might have merit. Ultimately, public officials in 26 states have challenged the law.
Even if one accepts that the removal of the clause was just some colossal, inexplicable blunder, it was the blunder of the White House and Congress — not the courts. The result was a Ford Pinto law — a fast and cheap vehicle that would explode with even low-speed collisions.
The Justice Department undermined its own case by repeatedly warning Vinson in court that if he struck down the individual mandate, the law would be fundamentally crippled. Without the mandate (and young healthy people forced to buy insurance), the plan is fatally underfunded. It appeared to the court that the administration was arguing that it was an “all-or-nothing” proposition. Vinson’s ruling: Nothing it is.
Of course, the law could be ultimately saved by the U.S. Supreme Court, where it is clearly heading. In the end, however, it seems a bit forced for the Obama administration to throw around the old cry of “judicial activism” when it pushed through a law that removed the critical safety provision for severability.
The problem with games of chicken is that sometimes the other guy does not jump before the cliff.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
——
Justice Antonin Scalia is scheduled to appear before an eager freshman class Monday to talk about the Constitution. This is nothing new for Scalia, who often speaks at law schools. These students, however, are a little different.
At the invitation of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Scalia will be addressing new conservative members of the House of Representatives. To them, Scalia is a nothing short of a rock star. He personifies not only conservative values but a new model for the Supreme Court: the celebrity justice.
Where Scalia has ventured with crowd-pleasing rhetoric, other justices are following. They rally their bases on the right or the left with speeches, candid interviews, commencement addresses and book tours. They appear to be abandoning the principle of strict neutrality in public life, long a touchstone of service on the highest court.
The Bachmann event takes this posturing to a new level. Scalia will be directly advising new lawmakers who came to Congress on a mission to remake government in a more conservative image. Many of them made pledges to repeal health-care reform, restrict immigration and investigate the president – pledges based on constitutional interpretations that might end up before the court.
At best, Scalia’s appearance can be viewed as a pep talk. At worst, it smacks of a political alliance.
Supreme Court justices have long chosen fairly cloistered lives and avoided public speeches and appearances. Historically, most members of the highest court – where the proceedings are still not televised – were unrecognizable to citizens. In an incident that’s a favorite of mine, a tourist family once asked an elderly man to take their picture at the court – and found out later that it was Justice Byron White.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired last year, may have been the last of the breed of judges truly committed to limiting public appearances. A couple of years ago, Stevens and I spoke to a judicial conference in Milwaukee and flew on the same plane. While we chatted at the gate, a lawyer came up and introduced himself to me. He didn’t recognize Stevens, and when I introduced him to the justice, the lawyer turned scarlet and made a fast retreat. Stevens never wanted to be a legal idol. He wanted to speak only through his opinions.
But as soon as Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, it was clear that he would be a different type of justice. He was instantly recognized as the intellectual leader of the right on the court at a time of intense ideological divisions. He also chafed at the court’s monastic environment. Charming and irascible, Scalia is a much valued speaker and loves to interact with lawyers and law students. He often appears at conservative events and thrills crowds by attacking liberal doctrines. Scalia gave a revealing interview, published in this month’s California Lawyer magazine, speaking against claims that the 14th Amendment protects women and gays from discrimination. While that was not a new position for Scalia, he again triggered a public debate on issues that are likely to come before the court this term.
Scalia is not the first justice to cultivate a constituency. Justice William Douglas, appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, publicly embraced environmental causes, including the preservation of the C&O Canal. More recently, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was criticized for condemning the death penalty. In a 2001 speech in Minnesota, O’Connor said that she questioned whether the death penalty could be “fairly administered in this country.” She told her audience, “Minnesota doesn’t have [the death penalty], and you must breathe a big sigh of relief every day.”
Still, Scalia is the first real celebrity justice. When he appears at conservative events, supporters line up to greet a man who seems more oracle than orator. They are drawn not just to his originalist views but to the sense that he is a purist on a court of relativists. And his fans are often rewarded with a zinger from the justice that would set the hair of every liberal on fire. For example, in a 2006 talk to students in Switzerland, Scalia denounced the idea of giving Guantanamo detainees rights in federal courts, with a disturbingly personal take on the matter: “Give me a break. . . . If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, [Guantanamo] is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield, and they were shooting at my son, and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean, it’s crazy.”
Other justices, particularly those on the right, appear to be following Scalia’s lead and presenting their politics publicly. This includes Justice Clarence Thomas, who is known for his utter silence during oral arguments. Outside the court, though, he has denounced our society’s “focus on our rights” and the “proliferation of rights” protecting citizens. And the whole world saw Justice Samuel Alito shake his head and mouth “not true” as the president criticized the recent Citizens United decision on campaign finance at the State of the Union address last year.
Justices who flaunt their politics publicly do more than just lecture – they also can raise cash for ideological allies. Scalia and Thomas have reportedly attended events funded by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch. Last week, Thomas admitted through a spokesman that he “dropped by” a Koch session in 2008. Both justices were even featured in Koch promotional material with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
Alito has spoken at a fundraiser for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative educational group. He regularly attends conservative fundraisers, including a recent event for the American Spectator magazine; he headlined that annual dinner in 2008. When confronted about his presence at the clearly partisan event, Alito dismissed concerns, saying, “It’s not important.”
But it is important. Perhaps not to Alito or Scalia, but to the court. If justices come to personify political movements, the law appears to be merely an extension of the personalities – and the politics – on the bench.
Some judicial commentary and appearances raise serious ethical questions. Canon 4 of the judicial Code of Conduct states that a federal judge should not take part in any activities that “reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality.” This canon specifically warns that “a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose.”
But this code applies only to lower-court judges; the members of the highest court in the land are not, in fact, subject to any code of conduct. The only direct limitation is the federal law that requires a judge or a justice to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This law, however, lacks a process for making a complaint and has never been enforced against a justice. Each justice is left to be the judge of his or her own alleged misconduct.
This is not a problem only for the more conservative justices. While Justices John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have all spoken to or been honored by the conservative Federalist Society, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has headlined for the liberal American Constitution Society, and Justice Stephen Breyer appears frequently before outside groups. In one speech at a foreign conference, Ginsburg assailed conservative members of Congress for statements that she said “fueled” an “irrational fringe” that threatened her life.
Ginsburg’s remarks highlight an irony with celebrity justices. During her confirmation hearings in 1993, she refused to answer questions about issues that might later come before the court. Thus the “Ginsburg rule” was born: Aspiring justices, at very cautious confirmation hearings, avoid engaging on the substance of their legal opinions. Yet, after confirmation, justices are increasingly entering into public debates over the law.
Monday’s Bachmann-convened summit featuring Scalia magnifies this problem. The effort to educate new lawmakers about the Constitution is commendable. (I have met several times with members of Congress, including Bachmann, for lunches to discuss constitutional principles.) However, if Scalia educates new members, that undermines both the court and Congress. The principle of judicial neutrality should not be compromised for a legal seminar.
Justice Robert Jackson once advised that justices “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.” That winking observation is certainly true – justices Justices clearly can make mistakes. Few can resist public adoration. However, as they justices yield to that temptation, citizens may find it hard to accept the finality of their decisions. If justices merely carry the torch for their political allies, law becomes little more than a part of politics.
Justices do not have a “base.” They must ask more of themselves by offering less to their respective constituencies.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington Law School.
January 23, 2010
Washington Post (Sunday)
just a comment, what if….what if a country other than the US, decides as the US to move unilaterly, to rid us of oppressive government and a tyrannt, for crimes against humanity, or just the american people, as your government has….try on those shoes…just a question??? big rich
new mail address….
Thank you.
I came to your site because I read that you would be the person to talk to about what ordinary people can do when congress refuses to do its job and hold administration criminals accountable for their crimes. How do we go about impeachment without the idiots in washington being ionvolved?
Re: The Five Stages of Christmas
LOL!!! If your career as a brilliant and gifted constitutional law professor/media commentator ever founders, you could always make the payroll by doing a little stand up! Striking Hollywood writers: Beware!
Well, I must say that the little livestock give an endless amount of material — and injuries — to ponder! Have a great holiday.
Dear Prof. Turley,
)
(When I try to post a comment on this the first time around, it did not work. So I hope it will make it this time.
This column is very entertaining; I kept giggling while reading it..I am sure it was quite serious and dangerous situations then, but looking back I think it is one of those stories that you can pass on to your children (if they don’t remember them, that is
). But I really hope that you will keep yourself safe through these dangerous(?) holidays because you are one of the most admired intellectuals in this country and whom this country needs. Your blog (actually your stands on the constiution) opened my eyes to see the things I’ve ignored about what is going on with this country in terms of our rights and freedom. I think I took so many things for granted…but now I realize basic rights and freedom are something we have to guard for not something to take granted for. I am a naturalized U.S. citizen. I used to think that the U.S. was one of the greatest countries because of its stands on human rights and freedom along with other great things. And no doubt now the image of the country is very much tainted due to the course this administration has taken on these issues which are totally against what this contry is founded upon. I want to see the restored image of this country so that I can say that I am proud to be an American. So please keep being a hero for those of us who believe in true American values and who understand what defines Americans.
Happy holidays to you and your familay!!
I apologize; I didn’t mean to make the comment this long. And this comment is quite different from my original one that did not make it
Sincerely,
Sue (AlwaysCurious)
I,for one, would like you as an AJ, Professor Turley, precisely for the reason of the post above. I don’t imagine for a moment that the next appointment is going to be the liberal firebrand antithesis to a Luttig or JRB or some such. No, what is needed is a genial, convivial person, self-deprecating, and comfortable with the media. Personal qualities and abilities to get along with the swing votes will be crucial qualities in the next search since professional competence, illustrious resume, and good knowledge of the law are going to be common across the pool. But perhaps most importantly, it seems to me from reading between the lines on this blog of yours, that you actually deeply care about the constitutional issues of the day, and that though you grace everything with humor and balance, you are invested in this civic religion that many of us share.
Or so I imagine in my outsider, out-of-the-loop way….
I realize that I have been shamelessly indulging myself with promoting you for the position and that it is graceless and awkward, so this will be my last on the topic and no reply necessary!
Seasons greetings.
Please Deeply worried, do not apologize for promoting my elevation to AG. Such a position would bring a security detail which would help dramatically with child care.
Sue:
Thank you for your kind note. With people like you, this country has a bright future. Have a great holiday!
Jonathan
The talking grill really got to me. I laughed so, it brought tears to my eyes.
I must second the idea of your becoming a comedian. And since the writers’ strike is on, this might be a good time to approach MSNBC about doing a show.
You know, the wonderful thing about that possessed grill is that it continued to haunt the family for months. It developed some type of short that would make it spontaneously come on in the middle of the night or when you were walking by in the dark. Suddenly an alien voice would yell, “Let’s Grill?” I finally took the damn thing to the trash and the last I heard from it was some babbling about ketchup as I threw it into the can. I still imagine it out in some dump yield freaking about the seagulls.
Have a great new year Prof. Turley!
Let’s hope that next year is a better year for our constitution. I know you will keep fighting for it.
Do you have any plan to appear on TV anytime soon? I am always eager to hear what you have to say.
We just got back from the holiday, so nothing planned yet for next week except a column on January 3rd on election day and the campaigns in USA Today.
Yes, I would like to see more politicians like Ron Paul. I do not agree with all of his stands on the issues, but at least he has been always consistent with his positions and lived by his principles.
I have yet to decide on which candidate I am supporting but one thing that would affect my decision is their consistency on the issues, most importantly civil liberty voting records.
Thank you for this post, Prof, Turley and Happy New Year!!!
Re: 2008: The year of principles?
Can I get an “Amen” brothers and sisters?
This is not directed at your column but is a general comment to Professor Turley. The Professor would be the perfect candidate for either the post of attorney General or be be named Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court. He would be perfect. He can talk the talk on both sides, to the professional lawyer and to the layman, with both understanding his position and his viewpoint. I look forward to seeing him on TV. as his explanation of the law is very helpful.
RGKahn:
Thanks so much for your kind words. I will keep my day job for the moment!
Best,
Jonathan
You see Professor Turley, there is a popular groundswell developing for your elevation to the Court.
And some of us may have some tiny, miniscule modicum of influence, who can say?? I think of Patty C and her telephone.
In any case, we should all keep our day jobs for now. Massive changes are afoot and not all political at that. A job is a nice thing to have….
You rang, DW?
As most of you know, I have a phone and I’m not afraid to use it…
I agree with you that JT would be perfect as a Supreme, but I am also selfish enough to want to keep him here, with us, for now. And also because ‘here’ is where is most needed and is being, quite obviously, most effective.
Besides that, we are a blast to hang out with about now. Right, JT?
P.S. Hey,you guys, I’m thinkin’ about changing my handle to
‘One Ringy Dingy,Two Ringy Dingy’. Whaddya think?
I would prefer your current one!!
Mr. Turley your views on the death penalty show you to be nothing but a bleeding heart liberal, thank God that Nino, Clarence and the boys don’t agree with you. I pray that you never get appointed to the Supreme Court.
The current Court is following the will of the American people who want to see justice for victims of violent crime. Liberals have always been more concerned for the perpetrators than for the the victims. It’s odd they don’t use the same rationale concerning abortion that they do regarding capital punishment.
*sigh* There’s a BIG difference between justice and vengeance.
Wild update from Detroit (Feb. 5, 2008):
Judge has ordered release of ALL documents pertaining to the sudden settlement of a $9 million lawsuit brought on by three police officers against the mayor. The officers had evidence that the mayor was carrying on an extramarital affair probably using city tax dollars; the mayor subsequnetly and unjustly fired the three. The judge ruled a city cannot enter into “confidentiality agreements” assumed to have been doen to supress the embarassing details of the mayor’s activity.
The mayor denied under oath during the trial of the affair. Since then, new evidence (probably leaked from the confidential settlement agreement) indicates he lied under oath. A 2004 Michigan Supreme Court ruling says perjury does NOT have to be material.
After the judge ruled today to release ALL documents, the mayor (apparently not in need of city council affirmation) announced “the city will immeidately appeal this decision”.
Will this all end up staying in state court or do the feds move in and take it over?
Check it out at wxyz.com
Leave a Reply
Logged in as . Logout »
Name
Mail (will not be published)
Website
——————————————————————————–
« Capturing the Pedaphile Market?: Woolworths Forced to Pull “Lolita” Beds from StoresRent-a-Justice: New Orleans Supreme Court Faces Allegations of Favoritism for Contributors »
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
Topics
Academics (42)
Bizarre (368)
Columns (51)
Congress (254)
Constitutional Law (328)
Criminal law (264)
Environment (59)
Justice (412)
Lawyering (241)
Military (32)
Politics (296)
Roll Call (14)
Society (692)
Supreme Court (73)
Testimony (14)
Torts (167)
Uncategorized (37)
USA Today (49)
Washington Post (16)
Blogroll
Jonathan’s GW Page
Recent Posts
Court Reduces Punitive Damages Against Radical Anti-Homosexual Church
Court of Appeals Upholds Termination of Police Officer Over Private Porn Site
Roger Clemens Testifies Without Immunity in Congress
Let the Games Begin: China Prepares for Olympics by Convicting Journalist for Writing About Government Corruption
Winston Who?: One in Four British Citizens Believe Churchill Never Existed
Archives
February 2008 (22)
January 2008 (108)
December 2007 (171)
November 2007 (166)
October 2007 (130)
September 2007 (109)
August 2007 (195)
Recent Comments Hugh Gilpatric on Court of Appeals Upholds Termi…
rcampbell on Court of Appeals Upholds Termi…
Vincent Caminiti on Let the Games Begin: China Pre…
binx101 on Let the Games Begin: China Pre…
deeply worried on Let the Games Begin: China Pre…
Mr. Turley….
I’m not sure you are the right person for this query but you’re better than 99.6% of everyone else in the community, so here goes..
How do we the people, or whom in our representation, can refer George Bush and Dick Cheney (and others in this current administration) to the International Criminal Court in the Hague?
I understand we as a nation have not “recognized” this court but does that make a difference??
Why hasn’t Cuba issued indictments for the many crimes committed at Gitmo? If they did, would the indictees be subject to arrest if they left the United States?
It seems to me that justice for the Bush dictatorship will have to be outside the US.
RB-Chicago – we can’t. The U.S. is one of the few countries that did not sign the agreement for the International Criminal Court. Thanks the Republican Congress and George Bush.
Mark:
Thanks.
So what is being said is we have no recourse against these criminals in any forum. While the rest of the world laughs us out of the room; our economy tanks at the expense of the big corporations that Bush and cronies on the Supreme Court now protect; Bush just says this morning that torture must be in the US bag of tricks, against every international law/treaty we as a country have ever agreed to because of some imagined threat the Cheney makes up in his sleep; and, we sit by quietly watching all this happen with no way it seems to stop it??
Mark, I don’t know if you follow such things but yesterday’s decision in Medellin v Texas pretty much scuttles any talk of the ICJ binding domestic courts short of Congressional enabling legislation.
Robert’s footnote 2 by implication gives the Supremacy Clause a new reading, and the conservative bloc voted as expected even though it was against their Commander in Chief and against some of their originalist instincts.
At issue now is how many other treaties are scuttled sub silentio by this decision. What about the CAT?
But what do I know anyway…not much. Mespo?
Just a note – res ipsa is not “the thing itself speaks”
it translates to “the thing speaks for itself”
it’s a subtle, but important difference.
one is a statement. the other is an argument.
Prof. Turley,
I would enjoy reading your views on a Senate bill (S. 1926) introduced by Sen. Dodd, endorsed by Sen. Obama, and adopted by the latter as part of his economic plan.
Perhaps worthy of column? I have attached the URL for the text of the bill.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1926is.txt.pdf
Prof. Turley,
After watching the House hearing today with the EPA administrator Steven Johnson and his minions, I’m very concerned that this organization have lost their way to the truth. It seems to be documented in the record repeatedly that he has no opinion other than what he’s told by the White House. This is NOT what the EPA is suppose to be for our country.
Is there a way that Congress can remove Mr. Johnson from his office? Can the courts remove him? Can the courts or Congress stop his rulings?
It’s clear that his rulings are ignoring the science behind the recommendations that his organization brings to his office and he ignores them completely!
Please advise….
Do you think this product could have prevented the problem?:http://www.sgias.com/
It says: “Limit the risk of sudden amendments and text changes that change the meaning of a bill”
SGIAS® II is a comprehensive bill tracking and data transport solution for monitoring proposed legislation. The efficiency of retrieving only those bills with a change of action, with one search, is a real time-saver for busy legislative liaisons and staff. SGIAS® II reduces manual record keeping, produces convenient and concise reports and includes a safety net that eliminates the risk of unknown text changes or losing track of a bill. The search process is further streamlined by the ability to download multiple texts in various data bases at one time. The automatic wake-up feature is a robot that checks the status of tracked bills while staff is performing other important duties. In addition, Master/Client options will enable reporting bill activity in a timely, selective, secure and user-defined environment.
Service Group, Inc., provides a Win 95/98/2000/XP/NT product that directly interfaces with individual state’s Internet web sites. SGIAS® II provides the value-added enhancements for bill tracking, data exports and file management. The bill reporting capability significantly reduces the time delay of forwarding updates to multiple locations and offers quick and easy custom comments on individual bills. SGIAS® II is an effective solution for companies that follow a volume of bills. SGI will monitor the State’s changes to their Site, search engine and changes to Committee Action Fields to provide software updates on the fly.
Liberal TNR Editor:
Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq
By Warner Todd Huston | June 16, 2008 – 13:39 ET
In an editorial in the L.A. Times on the 16th, Kirchick said that “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” and then went on to substantiate his claim in a style that runs contrary to the Media and nutroots meme that “Bush lied and people died.”
The left narrative, one the media is happy to parrot, has been that Bush lied us into war. Kirchick points out that “the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.”
But Kirchick then steps out into some of the most intellectually honest analysis I’ve seen from the left since before the 2000 election when BDS first began to infect the media.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” –that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction –administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.
Kirchick goes on to chronicle some of the agencies and investigative bodies that have found absolutely no evidence that the Bush Administration manipulated Congress as it made the case for the war.
Kirchick also comes as close to calling John D. Rockefeller (D, W. Va.) a liar as you can without using those specific words when he notes that Rockefeller’s “highly partisan” Senate Intelligence Committee report does not support the wild eyed claims made in its summation.
Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Kirchick also trenchantly notes that the latest partisan attack that is being presented as a “report” conveniently forgets to mention the words of the many dozens of highly placed Democrats who’s words were nearly identical to Bush’s in the run up to war.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats — not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others — sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees — who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors — many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
In the end, Kirchick finds no shred of proof that Bush “lied” about anything. In fact, he scolds every Democrat and partisan leftist for saying that he did and that the claim that Bush lied us into war is an “unsubstantiated allegation” that is “cowardly and dishonest.”
So, kudos to James Kirchick for an honest look at the record. Certainly we can agree to disagree right now, at this point, if the war was a good idea or not. But, it is beyond question that there were no lies disseminated by the Bush Administration and neither did the president “manipulate” any evidence to “mislead” the nation into war.
Go read Kirchick’s piece and marvel that it came from a lefty. He really nailed it. “Bush never lied to us about Iraq” is worth your time.
Mr.Truley, when Obama offers you either the Attorney General position in his administration, or a Supreme Court spot. Please do me and the country big favor and accept.
sorry about the typo Mr. Turley.
RE: FISA
Can we immediately challenege the Constituionality of the soon-to-be-passed FISA Bill that grants telecom immunity?
Jim
frank seidle
1, July 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Mr.Truley, when Obama offers you either the Attorney General position in his administration, or a Supreme Court spot. Please do me and the country big favor and accept
I agree with the sentiment, that is, this country could do a lot worse than seeing Professor Turley finally in a position where he is not defending justice, but dispensing it.
But I do have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of condeming the FISA vote, then supporting the man who voted for it.
I’m being serious here, and usually get immediatly attacked for questioning why I, or anyone should or would support Obama after he voted to, as Professor Turley so aptly stated to Rachel Maddow on Countdown, “eviscerates the 4th Amendment”, and “its gonna hurt”.
I believe one term he used was it “strikes at the marrow” of the Amendment.
And more accurate statements have not been made regarding this vote. The vote Professor Turley admonished Mr Obama, and rightly so, was not a “compromise, but a cave in”.
Now what I’d like to hear, and have been searching the blogosphere for, is an explanation of why we don’t hold Obama accountable for this vote? I tried prior to the vote, to rally opposition to the vote and vocalize our opposition to it, so Mr Obama would “take the hint”. No one however seemed to want to touch it, and instead attacked me for even suggesting we withold our campaign donations and threaten to withold our votes if he proceeds to vote with the republicans on this one.
And thats what he did after all, vote with the republicans.
There certainly wasn’t one shred of sanity or concern for public safety in this thing. It was clearly a “we broke the law, got caught, so now will change the law” bill.
Q: If Obama thinks we’re going to vote for him, no matter what he does, just to beat McCain, then what is it exactly that will persuade him to actually care about our values?
Recently, Obama started wearing the flag pin. While I get attacked anytime I bring up the flag pin, the fact is, I saw this as a sign of weakness in the face of a little opposition. Right when the republican crybaby chorale was warming up, and trying to paint him as unpatriotic for not wearing a 50 cent piece of tin on his lapel, or more aptly put, wearing his “patriotism on his sleeve”, …or lapel, as it were…he caves.
His campaign comes up with this phony photo op where some troops hand him a flag pin and walla. He’s wearing the pin.
Why?
So he could look more like Bush?
Some tried to profess that he was “picking his fights”, but what I saw, was a man who caved instantly on the “little fights” and so naturally would cave when the big bouts came.
And he did.
Public Financing turnaround. Declaring to not only extend George Bush’s Constitutional nightmare program “Faith Based Initiatives”, and now FISA?
Even on Iraq, although he claims he hasn’t changed his position, he still made an obvious effort to give himself an out, using the exact same cop out used by Bush for not ending the war;
I’ll listen to the commanders on the ground”
It seems to me that we are doing precisely what we accuse the right wing of doing, day in and day out.
Condemning the opposition candidate for the same things we’re giving a pass to, for our own.
Am I the “only” one who feels this way? And if so,can someone explain to me (without calling me a neocon stooge) what it is again exactly,that makes us different them then again?
Cause I really wanna know.
lol. two typo corrections.
Them then again = than them again (say that three times fast)
and
Declaring to not only extend George Bush’s Constitutional nightmare program “Faith Based Initiatives”, =
Declaring to not only extend George Bush’s Constitutional nightmare program “Faith Based Initiatives”, but to expand them.
Sorry for the typos. I type this stuff quick and spell checkers are for sissy’s, lol.
Additionally, I’d like to hear anyones comments on whether or not they feel like I do, that Hilary Clinton may be still in this thing.
She never really conceded the nomination to Obama. Listen to her speeches. She acknowleged the support for him, and promised him, but she did not concede her delegates.
And so far, her “support” for him has been getting him to go out and beg for money to pay off her campaign debt.
Also I noticed Obama seemed to take his turn to the right, right after her people started nosing around in his campaign. I mean come on, Cowboy hats, vacationing on the fourth of July in Montana, eating steak and wearing flag pins while promising to extend Bush’s illegal “Faith Based Initiatives” program?
This sounds like her schtick, not his.
And then, she suddenly changed her vote to Nay on HR 6034, this past Wednesday, as if she had convinced Obama she was voting for it, then at the last minute taking a hard left.
I still think she may be planning a coup at the convention this fall, and honestly, I’m wondering if she doesn’t deserve it.
After all, anyone smart enough to fool the presumptive nominee into turning into the oppositions darling child, while at the same time putting herself out there as the bastion of our values, pretty much demonstrated they at least are no dummy.
And we’ve had “dummy” in the White House, long enough.
Dear Professor Turley,
Thanks for your hard work on behalf of Dr. Sami al-Arian. I thought you’d like to know that Melva Underbakke will present the film “USA v. al-Arian” at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tarpon Springs, Florida, tomorrow, and we’ll be reading excerpts from articles by Robert Fisk and Charley Reese regarding Dr. al-Arian, and playing his daughter’s “Ballad of Sami al-Arian,” with the congregation singing along. I hope that a number of our members and friends will communicate with Dr. al-Arian, and that he will be granted bail while he awaits deportation.
I myself may be going to jail this coming Tuesday for stopping a float I believe demeans and exploits American Indians in a local parade. I have been allowed to remain free since my conviction in 2004, and managed pro se to have my petition for a writ of certiorari accepted, docketed and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court–I raised questions about being denied a writ of habeas corpus in lower courts. Semper fi, Dan Callaghan, Social Justice and Worship Committee chairperson, Unitarian Universalist Church of Tarpon Springs; president, Society of Citizens Against Racism (SCAR); member Tampa Bay Downs Racetrack Chaplaincy; Librarian, West Pasco Historical Society, convicted felon!
U.S. AIRLINE PROFILING ATTACK-HOMELAND SECURITY VICIOUS ATTACK-ON CANADIANS (MY MOTHER AND I) -WE EXPOSE ORDEAL: http://WWW.AARONJAMESSTORY.COM-KIDNAPPING ATTEMPTS IN RESPONSE!!! US. NOW USING CAN. GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO KIDNAP US TO U.S./TORTURE TO SILENCE US-3 attempts on my life over last 2 weeks(july 31/08)!! Background: Oct 27/07 Wpg Pol broke into/raided my home/ ATTEMPTED MY ABDUCTION TO U.S. on behalf of their counterparts , the MN police in U.S. to silence our on line protest (AARONJAMESSTORY(DOT)COM) after my mother and I were profiled/attacked on a U.S. aircraft. Jess Zebron step son former Chief Ewatski is involved and is one amongst 4 Winnipeg Police ‘Officers’ who came under charges as reported in Jan 15/08 Winnipeg Free Press/ Winnipeg Sun Columns. All 4 of these charged Winnipeg police ‘officers’ were amongst the 10 police who held guns to my head raided my home, stole belongings sending them to Minneapolis in the U.S. and held me 12 hours no food no water, while threatening and making maneuvers towards my abduction to the U.S.
My website fully exposes the corruption within the Winnipeg police department: Human Rights report by Dianna Scarth and Jerry Woods cites racial brutality attacks upon natives and blacks outside the city perimeters… Canadian Press report by Tamara King cites unprecidented levels of corruption and perjury or brutality charges against police systemic across Canada.
See my site winnipegpoliceexposed(dot)blogspot(dot)com and you will see the Winnipeg Police exposed in systemic rapes, brutalities, drug dealings, gang affiliations, cross border abductions (of which my case is just one amongst many) racism, and systemic abuses.
Total 11 attempts upon my life by Wpg police-they are trying to abduct me prior to Sept3/08 hearing at which we can expose their involvement in our attempted cross border abductions/ kidnapping and jail them for felony acts!
They have gone so far as to terrorized family friends and associates – have also terrorized my 64 yr old mother upon one abduction attempt, demanding entry yet I was not present. We both now suffer chest pains and I have been hospitalized several times as a result of the combination of the original attack and 3 years ongoing trauma/ fear for lives.
Winnipeg Police chief Keith Mc Caskill is deeply involved. He is an FBI graduate with liason to MN police. MN police and Wpg Police Similar MN police are now undergoing lawsuit for KKK threats upon their own black police and Black/Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, and in Minneapolis where we were profiled/attacked 21 blacks are imprisoned for every 1 white due to judicial corruption documented by the Council on Crime and Justice.
CORROBORATIVE CONTACTS: Our Journalist Lesley Hughes (204) 275 5757 e:lesleyhughescanada@yahoo.com, also: Roch Tasse International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group: rocht@iclmg.ca, Communities United Against Police Brutality Michelle Gross (CUAPB.org) 612 703 1612 e:mgresist@minn.net,
(url link error correction http://www.AARONJAMESSTORY.COM )
U.S. AIRLINE PROFILING ATTACK-HOMELAND SECURITY VICIOUS ATTACK-ON CANADIANS (MY MOTHER AND I) -WE EXPOSE ORDEAL: http://WWW.AARONJAMESSTORY.COM
KIDNAPPING ATTEMPTS IN RESPONSE!!! US. NOW USING CAN. GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO KIDNAP US TO U.S./TORTURE TO SILENCE US-3 attempts on my life over last 2 weeks(july 31/08)!! Background: Oct 27/07 Wpg Pol broke into/raided my home/ ATTEMPTED MY ABDUCTION TO U.S. on behalf of their counterparts , the MN police in U.S. to silence our on line protest (AARONJAMESSTORY(DOT)COM) after my mother and I were profiled/attacked on a U.S. aircraft. Jess Zebron step son former Chief Ewatski is involved and is one amongst 4 Winnipeg Police ‘Officers’ who came under charges as reported in Jan 15/08 Winnipeg Free Press/ Winnipeg Sun Columns. All 4 of these charged Winnipeg police ‘officers’ were amongst the 10 police who held guns to my head raided my home, stole belongings sending them to Minneapolis in the U.S. and held me 12 hours no food no water, while threatening and making maneuvers towards my abduction to the U.S.
I actually met THE Ernesto Miranda in the late 1970′s.
A very small man, physically; about 5’6′?
Mr. Turley–I’m interested in the Area 51 suit in which you represented several of the sickened workers. In your opinion, besides getting the government to admit there actually was an Area 51, did you find that there was a good outcome of the trial?
PS Love your work on Countdown.
Dear Mr. Turley,
Watching the Rachel Maddow show this evening, I was saddened to learn how close we are to a complete and utter disregard of the possible crimes surrounding torture, illegal wiretapping and special rendition that occurred with impunity during the current Bush administration. I’m sure you are as busy as I am, but I can’t imagine where to begin in affecting a change in the direction this is going. If you have any information, other than contacting my Senator (Mitch McConnell…you understand my frustration on this count, I’m sure) and Congressman, I would appreciate you pointing me in a hopeful direction.
Thank you for your time, and for your consistent voice of reason and the rule of law.
Sincerely,
K. Medford Moreland, Psy.D.
Prof. Turley,
Please add my voice from the wilderness to the list of grieving citizens who fear Ben Franklin’s Grand Experiment may have just failed – or may very soon if our new President does not officially and publicly reverse our current President’s unprecedented violations of the American inheritance.
In trying to understand my governments’ behavior since 2001, I’ve come to wonder whether these otherwise educated men actually believe they’ve violated no law because their actual definition of the rule of law is inseparable from the rule of institutions. Could it be that there is a very subtle slide in American culture that excuses violations of Constitutional principle when done in the name of public interest – such as homeland security?
Could it be that state and federal judges are increasingly barring Constitutional complaints from the courthouse in the name of laches because they believe it more important to preserve the authority of government even against the promises of our Constitutions? Could it be that this is how Socrates meant that democracy gives way to despotism?
contact regarding law suit referral regarding free speech violations vs -usa govt
roger wiegand
511/12 Chamberlain St.
FLushing, mi. 48433
810-549-6310
Dear Professor Turley,
While watching Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann shows almost everyday, I have been wondering why it is that no one ever seems interested in mentioning the fact that President Bush’s father was, until recently, a CEO of the Carlyle group and Vice-President Cheney a CEO with Halliburton, two companies which benefit greatly from the war since their business is in defense, armaments, tanks, and oil. Is it not a conflict of interest for these two persons to be able to wage wars from which they will profit financially and more to the point, personally? Why is this issue never mentioned? As a French national living here, I am very surprised by the fact that the medias seemingly keep wondering why president Bush wishes to continue the war indefinitely.
I always enjoy your appearances on MSNBC as you always have very wise, intelligent and eloquent answers and I would greatly appreciate if you gave your thoughts on this topic.
Thank you very much in advance,
Evelyne.
f jonathan turley he’s total left wing lieral jerk off !!
How about a post on this:
“In a rare public ruling, a secret federal appeals court has said telecommunications companies must cooperate with the government to intercept international phone calls and e-mail of American citizens suspected of being spies or terrorists.”
“In rejecting the company’s complaint, the FISA appeals court found that the administration had so carefully carried out the Protect America Act that it was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It concluded that the procedures put in place under the law properly balanced the constitutional rights of American citizens and the national security interests of the government.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=1&hp
Dear Mr. Turley,
Thank you for you fighting for our civil rights.
Regarding Florida State law:
Under normal circumstances a private entity has the legal authority to give a trespass warning to anyone not licensed, invited or authorized to be on its property where there is no illegal discriminatory purpose, even though the public is regularily invited onto the property. But the issue here is whether an educational receiving funds (payments & benefits) from the state and federal governments is restricted from issuing trespass warnings to people using its facilities. Also can said institution, designated as a 501(c)3, “not for profit” still maintain its “private Property” status while still receiving said state and federal monies?
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Regards,
Josh Levitz
Email: mnb74777@yahoo.com
Dear Mr. Turley,
I discovered your site as a result of Paul Craig Roberts’ newest article posted at Information Clearing House which cites your quote regarding Washington DC as a place where “principles go to die.” Amen, brother. I was amazed at the vast collection of legal cases in your news section, after which I came to the commentary page and read the latest article on the new Administration, which I have called ObamaNation since his (s)election. The personality cult has been long predictable, and his avenue to continue to feed his finance masters taxpayer funds they gambled away the new rule of law.
As a youth, my greatest hero, after Eddie Matthews, of course, was Clarence Darrow. I read every book I could find about him, and decided to go into the law. However, in my pre-law program, it became most evident that Darrow’s brand of lawyering was hardly the standards fueling my classmates. It was a sad discovery. Even more depressing is the fact those are the men and women whom have created the death chamber for principles in every state house they infect, all happily dancing to the tune of the banksters, or rather, fraudsters, that juice up their campaigns. Many of these vile creatures are also a part of AIPAC, which has orchestrated the situation well summed up by Buchanan’s description of Congress as Israeli occupied territory. This brings me to the spy case of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, whose trial has been repeatedly delayed. It’s beginning to look like the Department of Justice (sic) is also Israeli occupied territory.
Thanks for the great site, Jonathan, it’s a real boon for us legal junkies out here.
Best,
Phil Toler
I am wondering if you can help me.
I have been held illegally for 14 years by some attorneys and the PTO.
The last time i fired an Atty. in sept of 2008, the PTO was forced to let him go.
I still did not know who it was.
so i UPS a package to the virginia State Bar with Mail and Wire Fraud. i had earlier given it to the Post master where i live.
The Post office immediately retired all the employees.
still nothing no files.
so again on Jan 22, 2009 i hand deliver it to the new Post Master. and BINGO the florida bar sends me a letter dated Jan 22, 2009. Telling me to re complain, that they are sorry!And that the Atty needs to return my files by Feb5, 2009.
My Problem is constitutional.
The virginia Bar sends a letter too dated Jan 22, 2009. It says I can’t blame this one or that one. but that’s it.
I could go on and on but i won’t
My home Phone and Cell Phone are tapped. i am at My Brothers writing this to you. .
Still no files. the atty. won’t give them up. He has been telling me in writing for all this time to get lost he doesn’t have them.
I think it may have been a high up PTO Employee that started the Felonies against me.
Can you help me
Sarah McPherson
PO Box 504
Decaturville, Tennessee 38329
731 852 2865/731 549 0697
731 984 7247 is My Brothers phone #
I am wondering if you can help me.
I have been held illegally for 14 years by some attorneys and the PTO.
The last time i fired an Atty. in sept of 2008, the PTO was forced to let him go.
I still did not know who it was.
so i UPS a package to the virginia State Bar with Mail and Wire Fraud. i had earlier given it to the Post master where i live.
The Post office immediately retired all the employees.
still nothing no files.
so again on Jan 22, 2009 i hand deliver it to the new Post Master. and BINGO the florida bar sends me a letter dated Jan 22, 2009. Telling me to re complain, that they are sorry!And that the Atty needs to return my files by Feb5, 2009.
My Problem is constitutional.
The virginia Bar sends a letter too dated Jan 22, 2009. It says I can’t blame this one or that one. but that’s it.
I could go on and on but i won’t
My home Phone and Cell Phone are tapped. i am at My Brothers writing this to you. .
Still no files. the atty. won’t give them up. He has been telling me in writing for all this time to get lost he doesn’t have them.
I think it may have been a high up PTO Employee that started the Felonies against me.
Can you help me
Sarah McPherson
PO Box 504
Decaturville, Tennessee 38329
731 852 2865/731 549 0697
731 984 7247 is My Brothers phone #
During the previous administration, I worked for Dare Mighty Things, the federal contractor that provided technical support for the faith-based initiative known as the Compassion Capital Fund. Much was made about the Bush Administration’s innovativeness in providing public dollars to support the work of faith-based organizations. This was inaccurate. Government support through a network of grants and contracts has been provided to religious organizations for non-sectarian social services for the past 50 years.
What was new was allowing federal funds to be used to support religious and quasi-religious activities under the guise of social services. This happened with a wink and a nod through the Capital Compassion Fund and related faith-based initiatives. This cannot be allowed to continue in the Obama Administration.
Additionally, I witnessed first hand, technical assistance training on how CCF grantees could legally discriminate against people they didn’t want to hire based on religious predilections. As an American, I was and continue to be offended that taxpayer dollars would be used to exclude any group of people. This, as well, cannot be allowed to continue.
Yet, beyond these challenges, there is the wider, Constitutional issue of the separation of church and state. The previous administration – certainly not the most respectful of the Constitution in general – somehow believed that the separation clause was up for grabs. It is not.
We are all diminished when government can use its substantial weight to assault the Constitution by funding the peculiarities of religious entities. Let’s hope that President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, will safeguard these vital protections by curtailing the errors of the past faith-based initiative.
501cweb:
That’s quite an indictment but not particularly surprising. I always admire insiders who value the public’s interests above their own personal ones. Thank you for your service to us all.
Here is an interesting story on property seizure in Texas.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6252365.html
Here are my two questions for you:
1) Instead of tax breaks on new cars, should the government guarantees or backup all new loans or lease on new equipment’s or fuel efficient car’s & SUV’s with 20 mpg or higher?
(That will help the US reduce up to 40% on fuel consumption and at the same that will create sales tax for the cities, save the cars industry, create new jobs and accelerate the economy without bailout. And based on my personal study, new car owners usually goes out more frequently and spend 2-3 times more than before specially on new clothing, movies, restaurant, malls etc…. And as you can see the risks are very small, but the benefits are greater).
2) There are millions of Americans just like me that would like to donate directly to the government at least $100 to help pay off America’s, What can I do?
Thank you!
Serge P.
West Palm Beach.
DOJ released Bush anti-terror memos
Prof. Turley,
Heard a brief exchange with you on NPR re bill to grant DC residents voting representatives in the House. You stated you favored representation but object to the method being proposed and you have proposed alternative method that passes Constitutional muster. Can you a post a link(s) to a statement(s) of your proposed alternative?
Eric S. Haiman, J.D., Ph.D.
Mr. Haiman,
This link to Prof. Turley’s blog regarding the D.C. topic might at least get you started.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/27/congress-re-considers-dc-vote-legislation/
Is there a story here?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30917
No, no story there, but thanks for the link to a domestic terror site.
Wed. 3/18/09 6:20am
Professor Turley;
While I have great respect for you, I’m writing to ask you to correct your comments from last nights C.D. w/ K.O. show. You said that Senator Dodd’s actions factored into the AIG bonus fiasco. I urge you to read Glenn Greenwald’s “Salon” blog as well as Jane Hamsher At Firedoglake.
Tom Abraitis
Tom:
I have read both columns and updated the blog. I agree that Dodd is not entirely at fault and that it appears to be the Obama Administration that pushed for the language. However, I still believe that the blame is primarily that of Congress which allowed such language to be included and pushed for a rapid passage of the law without greater restrictions. If Dodd pushed back (which I am willing to believe that he did), he still allowed the language to be included as did his colleagues. I do strongly believe that these excellent columns at firedoglake and Salon should demand answers from the Obama administration.
JT
http://newsok.com/edmond-family-fighting-for-soldiers-freedom/article/3357101?custom_click=lead_story_title
Thought this article was of interest
Prof. Turley,
Have you written or spoken about precedent for holding attorneys (think Bybee, Gonzales, et al) criminally liable for opinions given to “clients” to provide legal cover for the clients’ subsequent crimes? What is the crime? Aiding and abetting? Conspiracy?
Roger Frisch
Active Thermite Discovered in 911 WTC Dust :: JUST PUBLISHED ::
No one can be to busy looking the the torture revelations to research this and what it means. ALL of it is connected!!
The Open Chemical Physics Journal Vol 2 2009
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
or just google the title.
Dear Mr. Turley,
The most sensational and historical report of the post 9-11 era has been published by Dr. Steven Jones and other scientists, and not a single media source in the United States has gone forward with this report. I am speaking about the report which conclusively appears to prove without any doubt that nano-thermite was used to demolish the Twin Towers and WTC 7 that fateful day.
Because of your high morals and fearless approach to the issues of our time, I wish to contribute this information for your review and dissemination to your network of scholars and freinds in the media.
YOUTUBE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
REPORT: http://www.bollyn.com/public/Active_Thermite_at_WTC.pdf
Most respectfully,
Mickey Armstrong
Dear Professor Turley,
I was terribly disappointed with the presidents press conference and his careful maneuvering around the issue of investigations of torture.
I was thinking to myself, ‘our new president is just as guilty as the perpetrators and is making the justice department just as political as his predecessor’.
It seems the possibility of even the appearance of an investigation is dead. Am I overly pessimistic?
cheers!
With the greatest respect, Professor Turley, what do any of these discussions have to do with your Latest Column and what do those others comments under your Bio section have to do with your Bio?
Does this mean that these 2 sections are where I can best post off-topic subjects I am interested in, because I too might like to do so.
Respectfully submitted
Re: THREE LEGAL TRUTHS: THE CASE FOR PROSECUTING WAR CRIMES BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Dear Professor Turley,
I am curious to know, with torture being a crime under both domestic and international law, who, exactly, can and should bring charges? Why can’t any American citizen bring charges or initiate an investigation? Why can’t you, or John Dean, for example, bring charges? If “the failure to prosecute war crimes committed by your own government is an offense of the same order as the original war crime,” then who is culpable? Who will be brought up on charges of NOT prosecuting?
I appreciate your excellent commentaries.
Mike Daymon
Excellent commentaries….
If one was to come to my country, into my home, take me to some hidden prison and torture me I would ensure that the society that did it would have an enemy for generations.
“Rule of Law” in this country has become “Rule of Whimsy” our international activities reflect what is going on in this country. For example in Virginia I was assaulted by Manassas police in a CVS store, in front of cameras. I could not get our attorneys to obtain the store video.
http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/OurIssues04.htm
Dear Professor Turley,
As a non-citizen of the United States, I’m deeply and gratefully heartened to find your views broadcast for consumption by millions of audience members on American national (and international) airwaves.
I would be honoured (Canadian spelling, eh?) to obtain your responses to the two following questions:
1. How can I help?
Completing a B.A. in Political Science and History (McGill University, Montreal), I developed an extraordinary interest in the Bush administration’s military and foreign policies following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In 2002-2003, I felt particularly impotent because I’m a citizen of neither Iraq nor the U.S. Who gives a damn what I think? Once our government was persuaded to refuse to join the “Coalition of the Willing,” the remaining work to be done was in America. Out of desperation, I added my voice to millions of others addressed directly to Americans (e.g. “This News Is 12 Years Old,” http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/27_news.html). Now that you’re championing the cause for prosecuting Bush administration officials for violating U.S. law, I once again find myself wondering: “Who gives a damn what I think?” Yet, I cannot help but feel that, as members of one global community, in which the rule of law is almost universally praised, it is every single country in the world that was injured by the Bush administration’s assault on existing international legal structures. Given my combined interests in obtaining a legal degree and re-establishing proper precedent in cases of commission of the supreme international crime (i.e. aggressive war), I wonder if I should: (a) set my sights on working at/for the International Criminal Court (ICC); (b) stay in Canada and work to ensure we abide by our obligations under the treaty of which we are a signatory that makes us a member of the ICC, expected to both refuse war criminals admission into Canada and, failing that, arrest war criminals known to be on Canadian territory (George W. Bush will be speaking in Toronto next month); (c) move to the U.S. and become a citizen to work shoulder to shoulder (for a time, anyway) with others dedicated to seeing war crimes punished and prevented in the future.
2. Might not a “Truth Commission” make plain — and perhaps inevitable, assuming crimes are formally reported — the need for prosecutions, regardless even of the preferences its panel members express?
Although this is a hopeful view, from my perspective, it’s apparently no less so than expecting the Obama administration to do the right thing by appointing a special prosecutor from the start and of its own volition. There’s clearly no escape from politics. Could a commission start building the special prosecutor’s case so that, once political momentum resulting from a conclusive, Congressional accounting of Bush-era crimes both reduces the political cost and brings to a critical mass public pressure to do so, the Obama administration might then wilfully appoint him or her to carry out a mandate without fearing the political costs? True, politics are, in theory, irrelevant here. The law is the law. A special prosecutor should already be at work.
For the sake of hope, I would love to read your positive thoughts (if there can be any) on the following conclusion of Yav Katshung Joseph’s “Truth Commissions and Prosecutions:
Two Sides of the Same Coin?” (Mr. Joseph is a human rights lawyer and lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo):
“In many transition periods two methods are used to establish record of grave human rights crimes following a conflict/war: prosecutions at national or international level and truth commissions with various names, which investigate situations and submits reports. Both of these two methods are not sufficient and therefore, the need to complement each other. There is a growing demand for transitional justice mechanisms such as truth commissions, around the world. The problem however, it is to test if all those mechanisms imply good faith. Is the effort designed to generate more truth, more justice, reparations, and genuine institutional reform? If so, they are welcome. If the objective is to evade the State’s and society’s legal, ethical and political obligations to their people, they should be rejected. The answer should be found in the design of the process itself, but also in the degree of participation, consultation, and transparency that surrounds them (e.g. of South Africa). Moreover, we should start by avoiding seeing truth commissions as an alternative to prosecutions. Even if many of them have been accompanied by grants of amnesty to the major perpetrators of human rights crimes, viewing truth commissions, as substitute for prosecutions is not a right way and can lead to contradictions.”
“Therefore, we should try to consider truth commissions as complementary to national and international prosecutions, not to substitute them. They are two sides of the same coin: transitional justice. However, the processes must be sequenced in a way that one does not affect the effectiveness of the other. Accordingly, Scharf has said, “a country should not rush ahead with prosecutions at the cost of political instability and social upheaval or that every single perpetrator must be brought to justice, an impossible task in most countries that have experienced widespread human rights abuses. By documenting abuses and preserving evidence, a truth commission can enable a country to delay prosecutions until the international community has acted, or the new government is secure enough to take such action against members of the former regime [20].” Furthermore, it may be useful to examine the utility of conducting prosecutions after Truth commissions as a means of uncovering more “truth” that was not revealed through the process. Because, like in the South African case, if those people who did not apply for amnesty or those whom the amnesty was refused, do not face trials, someone could say that there is de facto amnesty and therefore, the purpose of a TRC was just to shield some perpetrators. In this hypothesis, the process will violate the international law and will not be in the interest of justice (society as a whole). So, we should look on the possibilities to trials for those persons in order to avoid impunity, contradictions and allow the roots of a just society to take hold.”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2008/0327samecoin.htm
Professor, thank you sincerely for all you do.
Olivier Jarvis Lavoie,
Well said. And good school too. I have a friend who was McGill Law. Sharp guy and a decent human (not that correlation is causation, but there it is).
Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for your work. Re: preventative detention. This is already legal in the U.S., specifically with sexual offenders who have completed their sentence. If they are determined to pose a future threat they may be held, without trial, indefinitely for the rest of their life. A case from Washington state did make it to the Supreme Court and the law was upheld. Obama is merely utilizing a law, put in place – regrettably – by liberals (for the protection of women and children, i.e. a “public safety” argument)in this new context. As you have repeatedly remarked, laws for one thing can be used anyplace else someone wishes and usually are once they become an established principle.
Stephen Buhner
I am a great admirer of your work, although I might be accused of prejudice judging from my last name. My family has often remarked that you look a great deal like my late grandfather Orville and father Richard.
My cousin is now putting together a family tree and we are wondering if you would like to know the results or possibly contribute your family history to see if there is a connection somewhere.
If you desire more information about me, please contact me at the email address provided with this comment. I will try to provide you with any information you need to assure you of my legitimacy. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Subject: Using radio communications equipment as attack weapons, including to commit radio operator assisted false prosecutions against innocent and unknowing people,
Section I – Court martialed and legally convicted escaped prisoners, more relative-perpetrators of the Jensen Family, still pretending to be qualified FBI and military personnel operating illegally as a foreign enemy paramilitary mafia inside of the US Dept. of Homeland Security since 2003, have been kidnapping legally qualified law enforcement investigators and prosecutors, since January 15, 1993, just to keep themselves from being brought to justice at the same time. by: GS Phillip L. Davis, Sr. (Revision B10-1 30-May-2009)
1. The satan worshipping evil spirits of the Bush family and the Jensen family, operating as the Antichrist ex-FBI/Paramilitary Homeland Security Government Takeover Mafia of Satan, in the clandestine commission of the 112 years long Electronic Spiritual and Physical War of Armageddon against the Creation of GOD since 1897, have been operating as a threat to national security, resulting from how they have been using radio communications equipment as attack weapons, including to commit radio operator assisted false prosecutions against innocent and unknowing people, such as spiritual assault and battery crime manufacturing, using verbal and non verbal radio communications being subliminally transmitted into the minds of unknowing people from inside of the borders of the United States, to cause other people to commit violent crimes in remote locations, is also how 98% of all crimes have been committed by other people on this side of GOD’s Creation since 1897 at the same time. (Revision B10-2 30-May-2009)
2. Resulting from those medical illness causing body tampering supervising perpetrators illegal use of radio communications equipment to take illegal remote metabolic control of the physical metabolisms of unknowing people, is how satan inspired and cocaine induced destructive intentioned criminal motivation operates inside of the minds of those physical evil spirits, as those relentless evil spirits do not want to have to leave innocent and unknowing people alone, just to ease their evil spiritual jealousy of other people having successful and prosperous, lifestyles, and is also how those all legally convicted and sentenced to be legally executed, psychopathic crime committing perpetrators are also obtaining their perverted and necromaniacal homosexual gratification they also have a continuous and insatiable desire to obtain fulfillment only from being in the willful commission of at the same time, they can only obtain while knowing they are destroying the Creation of GOD also at the same time. (Revision B9-2 24-JUL-2008)
3. Why, have those legally convicted perpetrators of the Jensen family Cook County Judge’s Mafia, been using radio communications equipment as attack weapons to commit high felony crimes of insurrection against the people, from the inside of that illegally operating electronic espionage control room allegedly inside of apartment #3927 inside of the Marina City Condominiums, located at 300 N. State St., in Chicago Illinois, being illegally used as a crime manufacturing/electronic espionage facility, privately owned and operated by the Bush family and the Jensen families, I have also been awarded the legal ownership of since January 9, 1993, is also still being falsely associated with the US Dept. of Justice, and while also having nothing to do with the legally operating US Dept. of Justice at the same time, and radio communications equipment is also being used much differently as attack weapons, by the Jensen family Cook County Judge’s Mafia, being supervised by ex-Judge Henry A. Budzinski (Jensen), William Rehnquist (Jensen), John Van de Kamp (Jensen), Eugene Wilson (Jensen), and Stansfield Turner (Jensen), from how radio communications and remote audio-video surveillance equipment is also being used inside of the offices of the more legally operating FBI, located at 2111 W. Roosevelt Rd. in Chicago Illinois, also at the same time? 7/4/2008 6:09:37 AM (Revision B10-1 23-JUL-2008)
4. Those already legally convicted radio operator-perpetrators of the Jensen family Pasadena FBI Mafia of Satan, and the Jensen Family Cook County Judge’s Mafia, operating illegally and seditiously, from the inside of US Dept. of Justice Facilities located in Pasadena Ca., and also in Chicago Illinois, being used for spiritual assault and battery crime manufacturing, is also how 98% of all crimes have been committed by other people all over the world since 1897, also for in home and spiritual thought privacy invading illegal search warrant and intellectual property embezzling investigations, as headquarters facilities and supply centers for their co-perpetrators of the local body tampering field patrol mafias pretending to be paramilitary while not having the legal right to be operating off base in civilian locations, and are also being used as phony and illegal prisons, privately owned by the Jensen family and the Bush families, for holding kidnapped20hostages for many years at a time, at the same time.
5.00 They have also been operating seditiously and subversively as the Antichrist Communist-Imperialist Government Takeover Mafia of Satan, a secret society of membership card carrying satan worshippers, in the clandestine and illegal and high crimes commission of radio operator assisted, radio operator transmitted, and electronic espionage equipment using perpetrators of insurrection, treason, spiritual assault and battery street crime and war crime manufacturing, premeditated false criminal prosecutions, hillside strangler false prosecutions, body tampering, medical homicide conspiracies, including cancer, strokes and heart attacks, implanting espionage transducers inside of the bodies of unknowing people, radio operator transmitted and mercenary committed destructive terrorism, premeditated disasters, underground nuclear earthquakes, r.f. remote detonation of explosive devices, r.f. remote ignition of incendiary devices, remote control of personal and business computer systems. of electronic audio/video equipment, remote controlled automobile electronic ignitions, diagnostic on board computers, and other electrical systems, destructive weather control (including the cyclone in Bogalay, Myanmar on Friday, May 9, 2008) Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and Hurricane Gustav right now, military, industrial, and computer sabotage, fraud and swindling and embezzling conspiracies, while also in the 112 inclusive years long commission of the Electronic Spiritual and Physical War of Armageddon against the Creation of GOD at the same time, as their m.o. is only to destroy GOD’s Creation and to also steal valuable and marketable property away from the people also at the same time. (Revision B9-4 01-Sep-2008)
5.10 William Rehnquist (Jensen), or John Proger just said he has been responsible for being in the commission of over 85% of all radio operator transmitted stroke and heart attack frame up conspiracies against unknowing people living on this side of GOD’s Creation since 1957, averaging over 100,000 victims per year in the United States alone, and was also one of his illegal duties and responsibilities as a supervisor of the Pasadena US Facility of the Jensen Family Antichrist Government Mafia of Satan at the same time. 12/13/2008 7:57:17 PM (Revision B9-9 13-Dec-2008)
6.00 They are also still in the radio operator assisted commission of spiritual assault and battery crime manufacturing, to cause unknowing people to commit all kinds of crimes in remote locations all over the Cook County area, and also through out the world from single source locations, is what also makes people hear ‘voices’ being transmitted into their auditory nerves by radio operators, and is also how 98% of all crimes have been committed by other people all over the world since 1897, while they are also being radio operator controlled also at the same time in violation of 18USC373, 18USC2236, 18USC2261A, 18USC1623, 18USC1001, 18USC631, ; (Revision B9-4 10-JUL-2008)
6.10 ‘Spiritual Assault and Battery’, (yankee voodoo part 2) is the voice radio operator transmitted remote crime manufacturing method the Jensen Family ex FBI Mafia of Satan Worshippers have been in the subversive, seditious, and clandestine commission of since 1908 that causes other people to commit crimes in remote locations, and is how they have been clandestinely operating as the remote crime manufacturing primary perpetrators of 98% of all crimes have been committed by other people inside of the United States and throughout the world since 1897, from the inside of illegally operating crime manufacturing US Facilities, they have been using as their headquarters since 1905, located in Pasadena, Ca. at the same time. (Revision B10 10-May-2009)
6.20 ‘Spiritual Assault and Battery’, remote crime manufacturing (yankee voodoo part 2) is also being committed from the inside of another illegally operating remote crime manufacturing US Department of Defense Communications Facility located on the JPL/NASA site also in Pasadena, Ca. that is also the headquarters of the Antichrist Paramilitary Government Mafia of Satan Worshippers, operating illegally as the radio operator transmitted death penalty penal code violating, war crime manufacturing arm of the US Department of Defense since 1947, including radio operator transmitted remote racketeering frame up conspiracies, international conflicts, and remote war crimes manufacturing, remote military sabotage, remote metabolic control, premeditated disasters, destructive weather control, and high crimes of mass destruction that includes the use of nuclear devices including the 9-11-2001, radio operator transmitted nuclear detonation, implosion, and resulting demolition of the World Trade Center in New York City, at the same time. (Revision B10 10-May-2009)
6.30 The perpetrators of Spiritual Assault and Battery remote crime manufacturing (yankee voodoo part 2) have still not been brought to justice for being in the illegal and seditious, clandestine and continuous commission of that voice radio operator transmitted remote crime manufacturing method and the real world reduction in the amount of crimes being committed by other people in remote locations, results just from the investigation of my complaint report called Spiritual Assault and Battery that also resulted in the Jensen family FBI Mafia of death penalty crime manufacturing satan worshippers only being told to reduce the amount of their radio operator transmitted Spiritual Assault and Battery remote crime manufacturing conspiracies they have been in the almost exclusive commission of themselves since 1897 and nothing else. (Revision B10 10-May-2009)
7. Why, did Bill Clinton and the United States Congress allow the court martialed, legally convicted, and sentenced to be legally executed by September 14, 1994, Crime Bill Mafia being supervised by Stansfield Turner (Jensen), to continue to stay on this side of GOD’s Creation, by passing that ill conceived and satan inspired Crime Bill back on August 19, 1994 that also authorizes the death penalty commission of federal interstate stalking, pursuing, body tampering, medical illness frame up conspiracies including cancer, maiming and disabling violations, and is also being used to jealously disguise my discovery of Spiritual Assault and Battery, the real cause of 98% of all crimes being committed by other people throughout the world at the same time? 9/1/2008 5:04:27 PM
8.00 They are also still in the radio operator assisted commission of body tampering and medical illness frame up conspiracies, especially the legally convicted relative-perpetrators, William Rehnquist (Jensen) and the Jensen family Cook County Judge’s Mafia, that includes using their field patrol body tampering perpetrators to clandestinely implant foreign substances and materials inside of the bodies of unknowing people while they are sleeping at the same time, including: cancer germs and disease germ bacteria, espionage transducers (crystal radio particles of germanium), that also includes removing the eyeballs of unknowing people to attach video surveillance transducers to their optic nerves while sleeping, ongoing since 1938, so they can jealously take illegal, clandestine, radio operator transmitted and real world electronic demon possession control of the physical metabolisms of unknowing people in remote locations, including to also see and hear what their victims can see and hear while also being used as walking telecommunications satellites also at the same time, along with committing radio operator transmitted yankee voodoo remote metabolic control, or, remote body tampering corporal injury false prosecutions, to also cause unknowing people to experience heart, stroke, and asthma attacks, epileptic seizures, forced urination and bowel movements, migraine headaches, nose bleeding, hypertension, hypo tension, toothaches, throat tickling resulting in forced coughing, vomiting spells, involuntary yawning, sneezing, runny nose syndrome, ringing in the ears, spots before the eyes, blurred vision, double vision , cross-eyed syndrome, tongue biting, whiplash, muscle twitching, inhibiting the growth of scalp hair, baldness, receding hairlines; and other kinds of hair loss conspiracies, remote control of blood pressure, artificially caused sexual arousal, physical disfiguring cosmetic alterations, mutilation, and body vandalism, including by changing the skin complexions of unknowing victims while sleeping using skin dyes and also resulting internal chemical injections, breaking teeth, spots on the eyeballs, cysts and tumors, changing facial structures (monkey face frame up), artificially caused impotence, fainting, arthritis, phony infections causing pain, swelling, inflammation, and tissue damage, resulting from heating up espionage transducers already implanted inside of the bodies of unknowing people to transforn them into tissue damaging inflammation causing transducers, and if espionage transducers already attached to the optic nerves are also being heated up it can result in blindness also at the same time, have also been putting people to sleep even while driving automobiles, while operating aircraft, and also to prevent them from waking up while their bodies are being tampered with also at the same time, and is also how they have been clandestinely murdering over 25,000 people per year in Chicago alone since 1967 and while also seriously injuring and disabling thousands more also at the same time; (Revision B10-2 30-May-2009)
8.10 The metabolic privacy invading radio operators of the Jensen Family Cook County Judge’s Mafia, still escaping from federal penitentiaries, even after already being legally convicted since January 15, 1993, and also sentenced to be legally executed since March 15, 1993, at the same time, are also the most threatening and dangerous perpetrators of the crime committing and crime manufacturing radio operators, are also the supervisors of their field patrol body tampering mafia, they also tell their body tampering field patrol mercenaries including qualified, ethical, unknowing hospital personnel, to inject chemicals into the bodies of unknowing people while they are sleeping at the same time, just to weaken and to slow down the metabolisms of their false prosecution crime victims in order to frame up their bodies to become their victims of illegal execution false prosecutions by remote metabolic control, also at the same time, including while their victims are also being hospitalized also at the same time, especially after their victims have been admitted into hospitals after radio operator transmitted stroke and heart attack corporal injury false prosecutions have already been committed against them, just so their metabolic activity can be completely shut down more easily, by those diabolical, perverted, necromaniacal, and death causing remote metabolic control radio operator-supervisors, resulting in the deaths of their victims of remote metabolic shutdown false prosecutions also at the same time, operating from remote locations also at the same time. (Revision B10 10-May-2009)
8.20 They also commit telephone order false prosecutions against their victims while they are also being hospitalized or otherwise institutionalized, including by also telling their field patrol body tampering and hillside strangler false prosecution co-perpetrators, such as their phony cancer doctor Jerry Stiff (Jensen) and x-ray technician Jackie Jensen, are also among the most dangerous of all of the body tampering perpetrators, to commit hillside strangler false prosecutions against their victims while they are also being hospitalized or otherwise institutionalized at the same time, while also being supervised by the same remote metabolic control radio operators also at the same time, including Budzinski, Wilson, Van de Kamp, Proger, Reagan, Jensen, Turner, Antonovich, Yaroslavsky, and is also how they have been allegedly murdering over 35,000 victims per year in Chicago alone also at the same time. 5/10/2009 11:33:08 AM
9. They have already killed over 20,000 per year in Chicago alone from 1967-1997, 40,000 per year in Chicago alone from 1997-2007, 7,000 from, 1967-1997 in the suburbs of Chicago, and 25,000 from 1997-2007 in the suburbs of Chicago at the same time.
10.0 The perpetrators of the Electronic Spiritual and Physical War of Armageddon, have also been using in home and spiritual privacy invading radio and video communications equipment and to also transmit delusional video dreams into the minds of unknowing people, including to deceive them into thinking they were the perpetrators of falsely accused crimes, and to also deceive unknowing people into thinking those video dream transmissions were visions from GOD at the same time, and are also being committed by the Jensen family perpetrators operating from single source locations the inside of crime manufacturing US Facilities also at the same time. (Revision B9-3 02-Aug-2008)
10.1 During the transmission of delusional video dream skit productions the perpetrators can deceive knowing as well as unknowing people into responding visual information contained in the delusional false creation video dream skit production, and also to nonverbal biofeedback also being transmitted into the minds of unknowing people at the same time, that can result in forcing people to try to move in physical response while they are sound asleep also at the same time, including by jumping out of bed or by unknowingly attacking their sleeping companion in response to false visual information being transmitted into the minds of their sleeping victims at the same time, by and while also deceiving their sleeping victims into thinking they were awake and were also operating from a different location also at the same time, that can result in serious physical injuries being sustained by the victim jumping out of bed while sleeping, or by physically engaging in some kind of a physical confrontation during the transmission of a false creation delusional video dream at the same time, and especially if their victim is sleeping in bed with another person while the confrontation video dream is also being diabolically transmitted also at the same time. (Revision B9-6 25-Oct-2008)
11. Artificial destructive weather control caused the devastating cyclone, and also Hurricane Gustav right now, being willfully committed as acts of mass destruction and destructive terrorism by Stansfield Turner (Jensen), the most destructive intentioned member of the Ronald Reagan (Jensen) ex-FBI and Paramilitary Mafia of Terrorism and Mass Destruction, in violation of 18USC2381, 18USC2383, 18USC2332a, 18USC2332b, 18USC2153, 18USC 373, 18USC2261A, 18USC114, 18USC1201, 18USC1091, 18USC1111, and 18USC2245, allegedly because of his jealousy of how much potential people have and his cocaine induced criminal motivation and satan inspired desire to hold them back, just to prevent them from having more successful lifestyles at the same time, resulting from his own feelings of insecurity after having destroying his spiritual potential and legal right to have a successful lifestyle himself, since 1949, resulting from his being legally convicted of being the willful perpetrator of high crimes of insurrection, treason, military sabotage, destructive terrorism, and crimes of mass destruction against the people and the United States Government at the same time, including the demolition of the World Trade Center and also the attack on the Pentagon back on 9/11/2001, and blamed it on Osama Bin Laden at the same time. They are all still escaping from state and federal prisons, after also being sentenced to be legally executed by September 14, 1994 also at the same time, and is also why he is a dangerous perpetrator right now. (Revision B9-8 21-Nov-2008)
12. Why, has the Jensen family Supreme Court Hillside Strangler/Recording Industry Mafia, being supervised by William Rehnquist (Jensen) and John G. Roberts Jr., the Jensen family Cook County Judge’s Mafia, being supervised by Henry A. Budzinski (Jensen), and the George W, Bush Homeland Security Paramilitary Mafia, been paying off bribes to their also legally convicted Jensen family relatives, the paramilitary helicopter hoodlums, associated with Stansfield Turner (Jensen), the same hoodlums who have also been embezzling all of the bank accounts from the people who owned businesses inside of the World Trade Center they also demolished the WTC back in 2001, also pretending to be their qualified supervisors by giving all of my property, my legally deserved royalty income, and my legally awarded restitution (all of my legally awarded restitution has already been committed to become the property of the Bank of Palestine – 12% can be placed on deposit inside of the Bank of the Republic of Czechoslovakia, 25% can also be placed on deposit with the Bank of America, and 63% to be placed on deposit with the Bank of Palestine, operating as the treasury department bank) to those same also court martialed and legally convicted paramilitary hoodlum relatives of the Jensen family flying around in red private helicopters while pretending to have already taken20illegal control of the state of Illinois at the same time, just to keep themselves from already being brought to justice, while also knowing they have also been sentenced to be brought to justice themselves since April 17, 1998 also at the same time, while also knowing they do not also have any legal or judicial authority also at the same time, and is also the reason why my constitutional rights have not already been restored, by the legally opera ting US Dept. of Justice also at the same time? (Revision B9-5 10-Sep-2008)
13. Are US Army Corps of Engineers personnel allegedly being kidnapped inside of their own facilities located in the 3400 block of east 89th streets, in Chicago IL, and also at 111 N. Canal St in downtown Chicago Il, and the Chicago Police allegedly cannot stop them from being kidnapped by the paramilitary helicopter hoodlums, because those legally convicted escaped prisoners operating as the Jensen family Mafia, of over 3000 relatives operating in Chicago inside of the FBI, US District Court Judges, ex Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia (Jensen), Cook County Circuit Court Judges, federal and county prosecutors, and also their court martialed=2 0paramilitary co-perpetrators operating as the Homeland Security Mafia, are threatening to retaliate against my personal family members associated with Arlene A. Madrid, being illegally held inside of the Marina City Condos located at 300 N. State St. at the same time. 6/6/2008 7:01:29 PM
14.00 Please release more than 300 more legally qualified female investigators have been since 1998, and are still being jealously kidnapped against their own free will right now, inside of a federal building located in the block compound of federal office buildings located in the 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, also inside of an illegally operating crime manufacturing us facility located on E St &15th St., NW, both in Washington D.C., and for no legally justifiable reasons, by the court martialed and legally convicted Jensen family ex-FBI and paramilitary perpetrators, operating as the DHS Homeland Security Mafia, after they were all sentenced to be legally executed since March 15, 1993 through April 17, 1998, at the same time. 6/4/2008 12:11:02 PM (Revision B10 10-May-2009)
14.10 I have also been hearing, three qualified TreasuryDirect employees may also be illegally held, by the already legally convicted and sentenced relative-perpetrators of the Jensen Family and the Bush Family, just to keep themselves from being brought to justice, inside of an illegally operating crime manufacturing, body tampering, medical homicide conspiracies including 100% of all cancer, and illegal electronic surveillance and espionage crime committing facility called a US Facility, located in Washington D.C., on E St &15th St., NW, also being used as an illegal record company, and also as a privately owned headquarters of the Bush and Jensen Families organized crime and racketeering operations while pretending to be the FBI at the same time. (Revision B10 10-May-2009)
15. Why can’t the Jensen family Law Enforcement Industry Mafia of Satan Worshippers, operating out of the Marina City Condominiums, 300 N. State St. in Chicago IL, in conspiracy with the US Dept. of Homeland Security Mafia being supervised by George W. Bush, finally be brought to justice including for being the only perpetrators of hillside strangler false prosecutions against innocent and unknowing people over 85,000 times since 1981, bring supervised by the legally deceased but still alive William Rehnquist (Jensen) and John Van de Kamp (Jensen), and especially while their victims are being hospitalized at the same time? 5,000 victims before 1981, 85,000 victims after 1981, 300 were males, and the rest were all female victims of William Rehnquist (Jensen’s) male homosexual jealousy hate crime committing hillside strangler false prosecution m.o. 6/13/2008 8:46:44 AM 5/29/2008 3:16:49 PM
16. Just to keep themselves from being brought to justice, after they were all legally convicted for being the perpetrators of millions of radio operator assisted high crimes of insurrection against the people and the government of the United States of America, and were also sentenced to be legally executed since March 15, 1993, also at the same time, and to also keep themselves from having to pay civil damages, property damages, and fixed asset restitution they have been ordered to pay to me since January 9, 1993, by the most legally qualified members of the US Supreme Court, including Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Hackett Souter, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Gerald Breyer, and retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, they have also been kidnapping inside of a US Dept of Justice Communications Facility located on the JPL/NASA site since January 28, 1993 at the same time. (Revision B9 23-JUL-2008)
17. The legally qualified Associate Justices of the US Supreme Court, including the legally qualified Acting Chief Justice, David Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, and the now retired Sandra Day O’Connor, have been illegally held as kidnapped hostages either inside of a US Facility located on the JPL/ NASA site in Pasadena, and/or inside of another US Facility located in downtown Los Angeles, located at 435 N. Los Angeles St., along with four members of the Grammy Awards Foundation and Committee, since January 28, 1993, and also three thought to be legally deceased members of the US Supreme Court at the same time, including William Joseph Brennan, Byron Raymond White, and Harry Andrew Blackmun, and they are also being restricted from and while using the telephones, by those same hoodlum relatives of the Jensen family, just to keep themselves from being brought to justice, and to also keep their illegally obtained assets from being legally seized at the same time, after they were all legally convicted for being the perpetrators of millions of radio operator assisted high crimes of insurrection, and were also sentenced to be legally executed since March 15, 1993 also at the same time. (Revision A4 11-May-2008)
18. The local police, including the Los Angeles Police Dept. and legally qualified prosecutors employed by the LA County District Attorney’s Office, still being illegally held inside of that illegally operating US Dept. of Justice Facility called the Pasadena FBI, have already told the radio operator transmitted heart and stroke attack, spiritual assault and battery crime manufacturing, and hillside strangler premeditated murder false prosecution crime committing, William Rehnquist (Jensen), or John Proger, he did not have the legal right to be in the civil rights violating continuous and discriminating commission of illegally invading my in home privacy to know anything about my private activities back in 1992, and have also already been ordered to terminate their illegal 24 hours per day investigation of my in home private activities since January 7, 1993 also at the same time.
19. Please visit my website located at: http://groups.msn.com/TheBushFamily-JensenFamilyRecordingIndustryMafia/documents.msnw? Thank you. If necessary, use sabertoothsleuth@hotmail.com; with p/w 90809080
Sincerely, GS Phillip L. Davis, Sr.
Illinois ID 1206 7 251 317D
6931 S. Crandon Ave. #2B
Chicago, IL. 60649-1769
(773) 288 8760 (773) 752 8324
Why, are the names over 18,000 legally convicted ex-government perpetrators, escaping from state of Illinois prisons, federal prisons, and federal prison camps (like the one in Marseilles Illinois) since January 15, 1993, already on federal prosecution orders since January 15, 1993, still not inside of the state and federal criminal history information computer systems, including over 3000 legally convicted relatives of the Jensen family operating inside of the Chicago FBI, the NDIL US Attorney’s Office, the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police, the Circuit Court of Cook County, the US District Court, at the same time?
PLEASE ENFORCE FEDERAL PROSECUTION ORDERS ISSUED BY THE LEGALLY QUALIFIED US SUPREME COURT AND THE CDC US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SINCE JANUARY 15, 1993. THANK YOU.
Section I – Some of the over 35,000 relatives of the Jensen family Law Enforcement Industry and Remote Crime Manufacturing Mafia, still escaping from legally operating state and federal prisons in violation of federal prosecution orders issued since January 15, 1993, while operating as the Jensen family Body Tampering and Law Enforcement Industry Mafia, a secret society of membership card carrying worshippers of satan at the same time. (Revision A3 14-Mar-2009)
1.00 Those already court martialed and/or legally convicted paramilitary perpetrators of the Stansfield Turner (Jensen) Homeland Security Paramilitary Government Takeover Mafia have been preventing the six most legally qualified Associate Justices of the US Supreme Court from using the US Dept. of Justice computer system while holding them as kidnapped hostages inside of so called us facilities, operating as illegal prisons, privately owned by the Bush Family and the Jensen Family, including from putting the real, legal, factual, and official, federal prosecution orders dated January 9, 1993, January 15, 1993, August 15, 1993, April 25, 1994, May 13, 1994, July 14, 1994, September 14, 1994, September 25, 1997, and also September 25, 2007, into the US Dept. of Justice computer system, to replace the falsified versions that do not include the names of the most guilty perpetrators and also does not include my name as being the crime victim and recipient of restitution awarded to me since January 9, 1993, or any information regarding my family members associated with Arlene A. Madrid awarded to me as personal restitution since January 18, 1993 at the same time, just to unscrupulously prevent all of the federal law enforcement agencies from knowing who the real legally convicted and guilty perpetrators are also at the same time, as the Jensen Family Ex-FBI and their paramilitary hoodlum co-perpetrators do not have the legal right to be kidnapping the six most legally qualified members of the US Supreme Court out of free society since January 28, 1993, just to keep themselves from being brought to justice after they were all sentenced to be legally executed since March 15, 1993, also at the same time? 1/18/2008 1:52:11 AM
2. Other relatives of the Jensen family include, the legally convicted Ex Judge Henry A. Budzinski (Jensen), the demagogue of the Chicago Mafia of Satan, and his also legally convicted, body tampering, mass murder, and investment property embezzling, crime committing co perpetrators, mostly relatives of the same Jensen Family, including Albert N. Moskowitz (Jensen) USDOJ, William Rehnquist (Jensen) USSC, Antonin Scalia (Jensen) USSC, John Van De Kamp (Jensen), Edward Hanrahan (Jensen), Stansfield Turner (Jensen) USN, Donald Norton (Jensen) USDOJ, Richard Devine (Jensen) CCSAO, Robert Lee Jensen, Sean Mc Cann (Jensen) CCSAO, ‘Anthony M. Kennedy (Jensen) (USSC), Samuel A. Alito (Jensen), Paul D. Clement (Jensen) USDOJ, John Calleveras (Jensen), Y ounker Forest (Jensen), Henry A. Budzinski (Jensen) CCCC, James W. Kennedy (Jensen) CCCC, Eugene Wilson (Jensen) C CCC, Ronald Reagan (Jensen), James Moran (Jensen) USDC, Philip Cline (Jensen) CPD, Jerome Graber (Jensen) BOP, H. Marshall Jarrett (Jensen), Kim Widup (Jensen) USMS, Robert Trono (Jensen) USMS, Robert Mueller (Jensen) FBI, Glenn A. Fine (Jensen) USDOJ-OIG, John Ashcroft (Jensen), Gary Altobello (Jensen) USDOJ, Dr.’ Jerry Stiff (Jensen), Gary Arkiss (Jensen) AGIL, Greg Afsharian (Jensen-Pasadena Police),20Rosenberg (Jensen-Northeast LAPD), Weisman (Jensen-Rampart LAPD), Robert Lee Jensen ex-FBI, Jackie Jensen, George Jensen ex-FBI, William H. Harrison Jr. (Jensen) J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Henry M. Paulson (Jensen) USDOTreasury, Robert Kimmit (Jensen) USDOTreasury, Stuart Levey (Jensen) USDOTreasury, Kenneth Fried (Jensen) USDOTreasury, Steve Cooley (Jensen) LADA, William Lockyer (Jensen) CAAG, Sgt. Weston (Jensen) CHP – State Police, Mike Antonovich (Jensen) LABOS, Don Knabe (Jensen) LABOS, Pete Shabarum (Jensen) LABOS, Zev Yaroslavsky (Jensen) LABOS, William Bratton (Jensen) LAPD, NDIL US District Court Judge s James F . Holderman (Jensen), Harry Leinenweber (Jensen), James Moran (Jensen), Wayne Andersen (Jensen), Dr. Robert Eizenga (Jensen) Tinley Park MHC, Tom Corbett (Jensen) PA AG, Richard Berry (Jensen) LASC, Thomas O’Brien (USDOJ), 3000 more legally convicted Jensen family relatives operating inside of the Chic ago FBI, John G. Roberts Jr., George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, the femal e members of the so called Jackson Family, 85 legally convicted Chicago Police impersonators, and other relatives of the penal code violating Jensen family, have been operating as a secret society of membership card carrying and penal code violating worshippers of satan, as the telephone order hillside strangler false prosecution crime committing Chicago Mafia of Satan, are also the perpetrators of a radio operator transmitted crime I discovered called spiritual assault and battery, that has been responsible for 98% of all crimes being committed by other people in remote locations around the world since 1897, and have also been operating as a espionage equipment using, body tampering, cancer frame up, and other medical illness conspiracy crime committing mafia at the same time. (Revision A1 11-Sep-2008)
3. Why, are the names over 18,000 legally convicted perpetrators, escaping from state of Illinois and federal prisons since January 15, 1993, already on federal prosecution orders since January 15, 1993, still not inside of the state and federal criminal history information computer systems, including over 3000 legally convicted relatives of the Jensen family operating inside of the Chicago FBI, the NDIL US Attorney’s Office, the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police, the Circuit Court of Cook County, the US District Court, at the same time?
4.00 Why, aren’t any of the names of the over 3000 legally convicted felony narcotic cocaine using relatives and over 8000 paramilitary co perpetrators of the Jensen family already inside of the state of Illinois criminal history information computer system, along with the federal prosecution orders that indicates when, how, and why, they were legally convicted issued since January 15, 1993 by the legally qualified US Dept. of Justice, after they were all legally convicted since January 15, 1993, sentenced to be legally executed since March 15, 1993, and have also been escaping from legally operating state and20federal prisons ever since that time at the same time, and have been harboring themselves inside of my free society residential facilities legally awarded to me since January 9, 1993, those legally convicted, threaten ing, and dangerous to others, body tampering perpetrators were never authorized or qualified to be housed inside of, being unscrupulously embezzled away from my legal ownership and control, by over 485 legally convicted NDIL AUSA federal prosecutors also escaping from federal prisons since January 15, 1993, and while also pr etending they are being legally housed inside of state and federal prisons at the same time? 7/4/2008 12:37:47 AM
4.10 Just to keep themselves from being brought to justice for being in the commission of millions of radio operator and espionage equipment assisted felon y high crimes of insurrection and treason against the people and the United States Government, including body tampering, to implant cancer and other medical illnesses inside of the bodies of unknowing people, and spiritual assault and battery crime manufacturing, to cause unknowing people to commit violent and white collar crimes, and has also been responsible for 98% of all crimes committed by other people since 1897, and to also keep their illegally obtained assets from being seized after they were ordered to pay restitution to me from the illegal sales20of bootlegged sound recordings being made from my jealously stolen, original, and unpublished, music compositions, and also after they were all sentenced to be legally executed since Mar ch 15, 1993, is the reason why they have also been in the commission of kidnapping thousands of legally qualified law enforcement investigators also at the same time? 1/18/2008 1:52:11 AM
5. 47 Legally convicted escaped prisoners, operating as the Jensen family Cook County Judge’s Mafia, of 35 legally impeached and disqualified Cook County Circuit Court Judges and 12 US District Court Judges, already sentenced to be legally executed by or since March 15, 1993, for using radio com munications and electronic espionage equipment as attack weapons in their commission of willful felony=2 0high crimes of insurrection against the people including radio operator transmitted spiritual assault and battery crime manufacturing, to cause unknowing people to commit crimes in remote locations and is how 98% of all crimes have been committed by other people since 1897, telephone order body tampering, cancer and other medical illness conspiracies, hillside strangler and medical homicide false prosecutions against people while they are also being hospitalized at the same time, kidnapping over 1500 legally qualified judges, county, and federal prosecutors, and inves tigators since 1993 inside of the Holiday Inn, located at 300 E. Ohio St., the Park Hyatt Hotel, located at 800 N. Michigan Ave. just to ke ep themselves from being brought to justice, have also been jealously and continuously trying to deceive other people into thinking I have also already assassinated my spiritual character, in retaliation to my being qualified to be paid restitution they have also already been ordered to pay to me since January 9, 1993, and while also knowing my name is not also on a federal prosecution order unlike theirs, except for me to be paid civil damages, prop erty damages, and fixed asset restitution, also in retaliation to my still having the legal right to be living in free society, and also in retaliation to my bei ng awarded a family of suitable female companions they have also been jealously kidnapping away from me since Januar y 18, 1993, at the same time. 7/4/2008 1 2:37:53 AM
20
5.10 The Jensen Family Cook County Judge’s Body Tampering Mafia, the 35 co perpetrators of the Supreme Court Hillside Strangler/Recording Industry Mafia, and the 6000 Ex- FBI operating in Los Angeles and Cook Counties are too dangerous to be housed inside of residential buildings, and have been escaping from legally operating state and federal prisons since January 15, 1993 at the same t ime.
6. Another siren hearing range penal code violation was just again manufactured inside of this same neighborhood, by the same hoodlum radio operators of the Jensen family on 7/4/2008 12:58:10 AM, including Henry A. Budzinski (Jensen), in jealous retaliation to the abovementioned comments at the same time.
7. The Jensen family US Dept, of Justice, still escaping from legally operating state a nd federal prisons since January 15, 1993, in criminal violation of federal prosecution orders issued since January 15 1993, after also being sentenced to be legally executed since March 15, 1993, have been in the over 14 years ling racketeering commission of kidnapping the members of my personal family associated with Arlene A. Madrid and my daughter, Evangelyn A. Kerr, embezzling my civil damages, property damages, and fixed asset restitution, including my legal ownership of Motown Record Corporation and the Marina City Condominiums, awarded to me, by the US Supreme Court since January 9, 1993, still in the illegal receipt of my original tap e recordings, containing20my self composed, original, unpublished, and never heard before, music compositions that qualified me to be working for Motown, also qualified to be released as new sound recordings for Motown, and while also continuously and stalkingly invading my in home, bedroom, and spiritual thought privacy 24 hours per day, for no legally justifiable reasons, even after being ordered to terminate their illegal investigation since January 7, 1993, also by the US Supreme Court at the same time.
8. They have also been jealously embezzling my legal o wn ership of Motown away from=2 0me since Janu ary 14, 1973 and all of my self produced and unreleased demo record productions with hit sing and high income potential they have also been plagiarizing and counterfeiting, without my required legal permission, since 1967, for the same reasons, just to prevent me from having a successful, prosperous, and financially secure lifestyle, they have also been jealously embezzling away from me and for themselves while also pretending to be the songwriters and producers of my over 1067 self composed and 1st copyrighted, original and unpublished, music productions with hit song and high income20potential, that did not a lready exist before I first composed th em as demo rhythm, track record productions inside of my home recording studio starting back in 1967 at the same time.
9. Those US Facilities are being operated under the illegal criminal authority of a civil rights violating, phony, and privately owned dept of corrections agency called the US Bureau of Prisons, without any charter with any government department or agency, pretending to be the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and have been illegally holding people against t heir own free will, and20while those death pena lty body tampering and hillside stra ngler false prosecution crime committing inmates, are also unscrupulously siphoning their inspiration, initiative, incentive, success potential, technology, and capability of opera ting successfully away from unknowing people while using espionage equipment to invade their privacy at the same time, just for their own self serving and criminally motivated reason ns and while operating as the perpetrators of penal code violating high crimes of insurrection and treason against the people and the legally operating US Government at the same time, ju st to prevent them from having more successful lifestyles than if they were liv ing independently in free society, at the=2 0same time.
10. William Rehnquist (Jensen), or John Proger, supervisor of mass murder hillside strangler false prosecutions, and the demagogue of the Supreme Court Recording Industry Mafia, in the illegal production of bootlegged sound recordings from my jealously stolen demo tapes since 1967, has been also been using slander, false statements, free society 3rd party illegal restraining orders, embezzling, kidnapping and threatening my female companions, committing hillside stran gler an d cancer false pro secutions, against 9 of my innocent relative family members since 1997, stealing my incoming post al mail and telephone calls, and has even been committing hillside strangler false prosecutions against my personal female companions, just to jealously prevent my suitable female companions and I from communicating with each other ever since they were first jealously stolen away from me starting on July 13, 1963, and also after they were legally awarded to me as personal restitution on January 18, 1993 also at the same time. 2/2/200 8 10:15:08 PM
11. Henry A. Budzinski (Jensen), and Robert Lee Jensen (Rehnquist) or John Proger, allegedly operating from the 39th floor, of the Marina City Condominiums, located at 300 N. State St. in Chicago, Illinois, have been jealously stealing, listening to, plagiarizing, laundering, stealing unpublished trade secrets from, criminally infringing on the copyrights of, and embezzling my unfinished demo record productions of my self composed, original, unpublished, and never heard before, music compositions with hit song and high income potential away from me since I was 15 years old, because they did not want fo r me to becom e more successful than their own=2 0sons could become, including George H.W. Bush, John G Roberts Sr., and while also trying to keep themselves from having to pay restitution they already owed to me since July 13, 1963, and is why they have been jealously squandering my time throughout my productive lifetime at the same time, including right now, and why can’t I obtain restraining orders to keep them from continuing to embezzle my property, from kidnapping my personal restitution family members from embezzling my mail, incoming telephone calls, my legally awarded restitution, my sources of income, my mother’s estate, from threatening to murder my relatives, from continuously and stalkingly invading my privacy, and from communizing my free society personal lifestyle? Thank you. 1/31/2008 6:22:18 AM
12. Why, haven’t the legally convicted relative-perpetrators of the Jensen family Law Enforcement Industry Mafia, operating seditiously inside of the US Dept. of the Treasury and the US Dept. of Justice already been arrested and legally charged for swindling me out of being paid restitution for over 14 years already, and while also kidnapping si x of the most legally qualified members of the US Supreme Court at the=2 0same time? Thank you.
13.00 They are still making themselves criminally rich, resulting from their illegal use of my jealously stolen original tape recordings containing my original music compositions with hit song and high income potential they do not have the legal right to be in the illegal receipt of after already being ordered to return my stolen original master demo tape recordings back to me since March 25, 1993, at the same time.
13.20 My stolen original tape recordings are also still being jealously listened to, Illegally copyrighted as 24 track digital grandmaster recordings (they are also using a music computer that can, by reverse engineering, synthesize a 24 track digital grandmaster recording from a stolen 2 channel stereo demo tape recording), plagiarized, counterfeited, and illegally published, as bo otlegged sound recordings, allegedly inside of the US Courthouse, located at 312 N. Spring St. in Los Angeles, Ca. o n the 12th and 13th floors, by the also legally convicted perpetrators, using the 13th floor of the US Courthouse unscrupulously, as an illegally operating Satellite Office of the US Attorney General, and also as a music embezzling illegal record company, at the same time.
13.40 The illegally operating Satellite Office of the US Attorney General, is being supervised by the legally convicted Albert N. Moskowitz (Jensen), and is also where John Van de Kamp (Jensen) could also be located, I suspect, and is also where he could be jealously and allegedly kidnapping over 75 of my personal female companions of my daughter Evangelyn A. Kerr and my wife Arlene A. Madrid at the same time. 8/31/2008 7:44:19 PM
14. Illegally copied tape recordings containing my original music compositions are also being jealously listened to, plagiarized, and counterfeited, inside of the California Dept. of Justice, located at 300 S. Spring St. in Los Angeles, Ca. allegedly on the 5th floor, by the also legally conv icted perpetrators, using the 5th floor of the Reagan Building20unscrupulously, as a music embezzling headquarters of the California Recording Industry Mafia, being supervised by the legally convicted Albert N. Moskowitz Jensen, and is also where John Van de Kamp (Jensen) is also located, I suspect, at the same time. 8/31/2008 7:44:19 PM
15. Please speak to my personal family members associated with Arlene A. Madrid and Evangelyn A. Kerr in person, and also to my personal restitution family members of suitable female companions also in person, including to find out how they are also being threatened and mistreated while they are also being jealously and discriminatingly kidnapped away from me at the same time and continuously since January 18, 1993, April 16, 1992 and before, by those legally convicted, male homosexual jealousy inspired, paranoid20schizophrenic, and psychopathic crime committing, Jensen relative family impersonators of me, the inventors and the perpetrators of over 90,000 hillside strangler false prosecutions since 1975, are also jealous of the female gender and are also continuously dangerous to their personal well being at the same time, and please do whatever you can to release them just as soon as possible. Thank you. 8/8/2008 6:03:30 PM
Sincerely, GS Phillip L. Davis, Sr. –
6931 S. Crandon Ave #2B –
Chicago, Illinois 60649-1769
(773) 752 8324 voice –
(773) 288 8760 fax / voicemail
Hi Jonathan,
Speaking of a need for web development or at least, a little tuning…I think the post of Mr.Phillip L. Davis-all bazillion words or so…is a case in point
Did you have any thoughts on or if you would like anything done?
cheers!
Mike et al…
Had a free speech question-I am not very informed and wanted to ask a few questions and get a bit of clarification…are you guys still around?
cheers!
thatmtnman,
For someone who claims to know something about WordPress, you cannot seem to find the 3rd section on this site called “Blog” where we posted about the need to update this site, with which you offered to help.
Here, I will try to assist you and perhaps you can find your way; now, easy does it, be careful, you must click on the blue link that follows:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/07/does-turley-blog-need-a-nip-and-tuck/
You will find the “guys” still around on the proper forum of the 3 available here called Blog. You are on the Latest Column Section, but you usually post on the Bio and you need to post on the Blog, where everyone else does, except for religious fanatics or other completely lost posters (except for regulars who try to assist the poor, lost souls). There are only 3 choices…good luck finding your way…
Cheers!
Hey thatmtnman,
I aint very smart ’bout computers ner this WordPress thang, but I held my breath and clicked on that blue thingy above and Whew, it works!
Other than that, I fear that I am unable to help you…
Cheers!
7.8.09
Professor Turley,
A simple question. If possible I’d appreciate a simple or…
complex response.
Thank you
Question re: States Secret Act. I understand that most judges, when they come upon a SSA claim from government, usually defer to the Gov’t w/o really looking into the SSA claim. Ok, I get that.
What if there is a situation where a SSA claim by a president, endeavors to keep Presidential Abuse of Power secret. And as a
result crimes are committed by others, and DOJ is unable to charge/arrest anyone since all elements, all facts, all evidence leading out of the SSA are secret as well.
This concept is complicated. But in essence, as a result of a President not wanting to allow certain information to be in the public domain (which would confirm his Abuse of Power)…he caps the information w/ SSA status. Part of what his SSA status is keeping secret is crimes of common criminals. That continue.
But cannot be stopped because the President’s crimes, and the crimes of the common criminal(s), DO NOT EXIST, IN REAL TIME, DUE TO SSA STATUS.
Finally to explain further. The President delayed acting on crimes of a “common criminal” because publication of those crimes would have hurt his election chances. That is abuse of power. The crimes continue of the “common criminal” but the entire nightmare is under SSA so President cannot be charged w/ AOP. But as he cannot be charged w/ a crime. The crimes of the “common criminal” cannot be charged because they, too, are under the SSA.
Can the Congress or Supreme Court or DOJ in any way interfere w/ such a Presidential Strategy. And if so, how would they go about doing such a thing.
If you can get your head around this, I’d appreciate a response at my email address.
Thank you.
Anon Y Mous
To further explain my above entry. The US Government under President Bush 43 was given information re: a long standing crime and criminal(s) = Anthrax/Tylenol. Bush 43 had information in his first term but refused to move on information given, potentially due to upcoming 2004 election and the possibility of it hurting his reelection bid. After 2004 election, he did not move to bring charges, then because his delay could have been seen as abuse of power. I believe he put it all under a States Secret Act claim to keep it silent. All the while the criminal continued/s his crimes up to and including today. Yet noone can bring charges because all is kept secret under the States Secret Act. The criminals are behind nationwide crime spree. Arson, Murders, and on. The FBI are aware of the criminal(s) and the crimes but cannot take down these individuals due to SSA that has been in effect, and remains in effect by the order of President George W. Bush.
7.10.09
Mr. Turley,
Further re: my above two postings.
This situation has been communicated exhaustively.
Bush 41, Jeb Bush, President Obama, AG Holder, FBID Mueller,
numerous Senate/House committees…Intelligence, Judiciary,
Leaders of both parties at Senate/House, Supreme Court,
CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, NY Times, WSJ and on.
Yet the killings and arsons continue. With full knowledge of
Bush 43 and all others.
Simply put, Bush 43 is allowing above mentioned criminals
to Kill and harm innocent victims because he will not rescind
his SSA classification of the overriding criminal situation…
because he, himself could be charged w/ multiple crimes if
the full truth were known.
Professor Turley, America awaits your comments. How is one to
end such a horrific crime against Americans by a former President using a method designed to keep State Secrets secret…
Anon Y Mous
Professor Turley,
I heard a snippet of a recent comment Justice Ginsberg said about Roe v. Wade.
I don’t know if you posted anything. But if you feel it is pertenint could you please post the comment in it;s full context.
I found the snippet disturbing but don’t want to “jump the gun” untill I’ve read it in it’s context.
Buddhaislaughing is living proof that some vaccuumed abortions actually survive the trauma of the experience. Some grow up and live, and write shitty blogs like buddha.
Mespo sucks. He is a brain dead charlie nobody, wannabee ambulance chaser. I think he gives helmet to Bron and buddha and his girlfriend Mike the douchebag Spindell.
I just took a crap and it smelled and looked like buddhaislaughing!
We hear that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case or that they have refused to hear a case. Who makes that decision?
John
Voltaire,
To be candide with you is it true you’re living in the best of all possible worlds? Your own diseased mind of course..
Someone told me that a bill has to (Constitutionally) be read 3 times in Congress to be passed officially. I see on CSPAN they vote to bypass reading(s).
Does anyone know if this really invalidates the bill?
It is sad that nominees need to be as unresponsive a possible.
It would be refreshing to hear a nominee express his/her personal opinion and then rightly state that they would base each decision upon the facts of the case and respect for precedent, no matter what their personal opinion.
Unfortunately, Congress has allowed a situation to develop wherein a nominee is forced to evade.
Wouldn’t it be nice to hear a nominee state “No matter what my personal opinion, the facts of each case should be determined, despite my personal opinion. For example, i am peronally opposed to the death penalty, but if the state follows the law, I might be forced to affirm a lower court’s decision to impose that penalty.”
In reading your long post on Justice Sotomayor I was quite disheartened. Before the Election and shortly after I had populated Obama’s fantasy cabinet with all the folk who so clearly envisioned all the places where the GOP had gone wrong. You were clearly in that list as AG, Special Prosecutor or certainly the Supreme Court.
An aggressive stand for honor and reality early on would have gotten howls very loud and long but it would have been at a time no body was going to listen, and in the face of the long list of new outrages that could have been outed as fast as they originally occurred, would have never gotten feet.
I am deeply sorry you have not gotten to act on what you have pointed out as a clear mandate. But I hope that as you keep speaking out perhaps someone will listen.
Jonathan Turley,
I think you do an admirable job of promoting and defending the respectability of the legal regime in this country (by which I mean the regime of laws and courts). You profiles of the justices and your attempting to promote a saner use of language are admirable pieces of writing. At a personal level you and I know eachother, dislike and disrespect eachother although it may take some time for you to remember who I am given your star-studded political life. But I hope that will not prvent this exchange from being at least ten percent rational.
Modern American legal experts like yourself really do not like federalism, really do not like the idea of separation of powers, really do not like to dialog with the traditions which formed the law and really do not accept the input of history and reason when it displeases you. I do not just mean your pals. I may at times (in my small way) be a political bedmate of your political enemies in the culture wars but in the confidential secrecy of the internet I will say that I find most of the very nasty things I just said to provoke you to be true of them as well. The one possible exception is that they do sort of believe federalism is not too bad. Ican’t help wondering what the end game is. Is our fairy godmother going to bless us with happy ending. If you watch such right wing pornography as “A Man for All Seasons” you may remember what the More character says about the devil and the laws. I think we are not quite there yet. I wonder if you can believe a dramatic line could be written about constitutional theories and legal principles.
franksummers3ba,
Well now since this is a site where people are free to comment on posts, I would love to comment on yours. The problem is that you either have a hard time expressing yourself in a written fashion, or you prefer to hide your statements by making them into cryptic contentions.
“At a personal level you and I know eachother, dislike and disrespect eachother although it may take some time for you to remember who I am given your star-studded political life. But I hope that will not prvent this exchange from being at least ten percent rational.”
How do you expect a rational conversation when you begin it with a slyly ironic put down of the person you want to dialog rationally with?
“I may at times (in my small way) be a political bedmate of your political enemies in the culture wars but in the confidential secrecy of the internet I will say that I find most of the very nasty things I just said to provoke you to be true of them as well”
Other than the above being poorly written as to clarity of thought, it also postulates a personal venom that is the antithesis of any rational discussion. You are trying to provoke Professor Turley and then seek to have a rational (10%) exchange?
“If you watch such right wing pornography as “A Man for All Seasons”
You are talking about a play written in 1954 and made into a movie in 1966. I didn’t particularly care for the movie, but then I did watch it 43 years ago. Most people under 45 have never heard of it so your use of it as an example of right wing pornography is rather dated. In fact your whole comment seems rather dated in its’ lack of clarity. It makes it very hard to fathom where you are coming from, but be it right or left your techniques are reminiscent of the pomposity of the “true believer.” The “true believer” espouses a point of view that they deem essential for the benefit of humankind, but in the end all they are really about is stoking the anger that rages like fire in their gut.
Now you probably resent this interference on my part since you specifically, if enigmatically, are calling out Professor Turley.
While he is no doubt more capable than I in dealing with your
diatribe, if regulars such as I keep out of it, then you really have no purpose in posting here. The only logical reason for you to make this post is for people other than JT to see it, or why not just send him a letter? Since irrationally perhaps, I assume that you are somewhat rational in your behavior, you have therefore invited my and others response. If this is the case let me say that in your vitriolic condition you are failing miserably in making whatever point you are trying to make.
Mike,
I do not know you. There is no irony in my comment nor is it a put down. JT and I do infact know eachother. I do not like the comment format here compared to some other blogs and perhaps you thought I was commenting on your post. However, the Jonathan Turley salutation should have cleared that up.
You are welcome to bat for your guy. However as a designated hitter I doubt JT designated you. The man can both write and refrain from writing. I doubt you know what I point might be. That last sentence was a put down. In fact you are probably fairly clever but your note above is more or less bizarre drivel. My senetnce was a disclaimer. If you did not like it you should have criticized it as such.
There is very little venom in my message. Calm and affection are distinct and actualy thought and animosity are quite compatible. If JT is able to remember me then he will not expect me to be a fan. It is true that some respect is needed not for thought but for debate. That level of respect is implied in the disclaimer too. You are an odd rhetorician but I wish you a lovely day because we have no personal history except for your note which I choose to forget about for the moment.
“In fact you are probably fairly clever but your note above is more or less bizarre drivel.”
Frank,
Let me state it clearly since you obviously find reading anything but your own productions difficult. You picked an open forum to write in essence a personal note. Therefore you invite comment, whether or not you appreciate it. Specifically though for you to call my output “drivel” is indeed bizarre, since your original post was written in a cryptic manner. You do know the definition of cryptic don’t you, if not I suggest you consult a dictionary?
“I doubt you know what I point might be.”
That is the point of my post, Frank, I don’t know what your point was because it was so cryptically written and therefore inappropriate for an open forum such as this. If you want to correspond with JT, then do it privately, not in an open forum. By doing it in an open forum you are then responsible to make clear what you are writing. Why is that so? It is because by choosing an open forum you are inviting others to see your obscure written productions and comment on them, which I did. You seem to want it both ways. you want to “call out” JT publically, but don’t want public comment. to me that is fatuous.
Given your two posts the obvious supposition is that you are somewhat disaffected with JT:
“I may at times (in my small way) be a political bedmate of your political enemies in the culture wars but in the confidential secrecy of the internet”
“At a personal level you and I know eachother, dislike and disrespect eachother”
Now in an open forum don’t you think such comments would cause people to be curious about your “beef?” Of course you do that is why you chose to post here. The problem is you apparently have a problem with clarity, or is it honesty and so post in a rather
“sneaky” manner. JT can of course take care of himself and frankly it’s not my need to defend him. However, as a regular here I don’t like people who play “games” rather than assert themselves clearly and I feel compelled to respond.
My name is Marisa Treviño and I publish a site called Latina Lista. Most of the content that I produce are centered on social justice issues, notably illegal immigration.
I would like to pose a question to you that I often get asked and because I have no expertise with the US Constitution, I don’t know how to answer it.
Who is the US Constitution for?
I realize the easy answer is “Americans” but given the illegal immigration debate and the millions of undocumented who live here, doesn’t the Constitution safeguard the rights of the undocumented as well? Or does it?
I plan on posting an observation about a Yale student news piece on how a court ruled against ICE because they did an illegal search and seizure at the home of an undocumented immigrant. As you can imagine, the comments that emanated from that court ruling were not flattering but I notice they all revolved around the US Constitution and how the courts could rule in the undocumented immigrants’ favor.
Any insight, that I may quote you and can post, would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Marisa Treviño
I have always enjoyed hearing your perspective on issues related to civil liberty and law on countdown. I was unaware you were also a blogger, the reference to our own Sheriff Joe Arpaio lead me to the post.
Sadly I agree with many who worry, unlike past generations when the supreme court became a stabilizing influence toward the restoration of civil liberty after abuses by the executive branch. This time around the high court is top heavy with what the young generation calls legal Sith lord’s, a reference I think to star wars.
Still the same President responsible for the Alien and sedition act also helped to craft the legal system we have today so perhaps it will work out for the best, President Obama was a constitutional law professor, I think he just needs some time
Hi Professor Turley,
I was hoping you would pen a commentary on the Yoo interview that aired on (1/12/2010) The Daily Show last week. It’s not like we didn’t expect his revisionist statements, etc. But, for me his admission that he “never met the man” (refering to Dubya)is big news. Also, I feel that he misrepresented current law.
Keep up the good work!
-Kristi in Portland
Professor Turley,
I heard your discourse regarding the recent S.C. decision and First Amendment rights of corporations.
I have a simple question that I have not yet come across and answer for: If Corporations are legally people, are they then subject to, for example, the Federal individual election campaign contribution limits?
Obviously, it appears they are not. Can you explain this logically? Is there a legal logic to this? If so, does it make sense to you?
We need at least 4 Constitutional Amendments to begin to restore our representation.
First, we must take money out of Congress. We should blind our representatives to the identity of the donors. Let only registered voters give any amount they wish in any campaign in which they are qualified to vote. Do not let any outside party, specifically political parties put their thumb on any election. Do not let any elected person know who gave them money. I call this Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Campaign Finance Reform. We need a Constitutional Amendment that makes it a felony for any donor to tell an elected person that they contributed to their campaign. It must likewise be a felony for a representative to not report someone who told them about donations.
Second we need to eliminate safe districts. Today, almost 100% of the representatives only consider the interests of their party. Our representatives should consider 100% of the people when making decisions. We need a Constitutional Amendment to make all House districts geographically based, not politically based. If there is competition for the seat, they will produce a better product.
Third, eliminate the Electoral College. This is the “ride–a–horse” to Washington” provision of the Constitution. Now that we have radio waves, TV and the internet, we know in advance that my state or your state may not be in play for our candidates, so why even vote? This is the ultimate disenfranchisement of our citizens. It is entirely bogus to say that the popular vote today represents the actual number of people who would have voted, if each vote actually counted. Some people have better things to do than to go vote for a clear winner or loser.
And fourth, we must have a flat tax. There is nothing more divisive than our current system. One half of us pay all the tax for the other half. One half of us have no economic incentive to do anything for the other half. The other half has no economic incentive to demand fiscal restraint in Washington. The result is what we have got. It is actually possible to raise the wages of lower paid people and cut the wages of higher paid people to apply a flat tax so that everyone takes home the same pay, while balancing this at the company level vs. the employee level, while remaining revenue neutral to the Treasury. We could eliminate all tax returns, preserve every deduction and make every citizen fully vested in the decisions of Congress if we enact a United Flat Tax. If you want more information on how this tax system would work, write to me.
Professor Turley,
Is there any truth to JFK producing plates to print money with red seals and serial numbers; and which would not have been subject to interest charges by the Federal Reserve?
Supposedly, he was shot in Dallas about two weeks later, and Johnson ordered the plates destroyed shortly after taking office.
Dear Professor Turley,
Watching you on television and reading your blog, really inspires me.
I am an undergraduate student studying liberal arts with an emphasis in humanities at a small private university, Soka University of America. Later I want to attend law school. It was suggested that I should first obtain a master degree before going to law school. I was encouraged by my granduncle Fred T. Korematsu to study public interest law and/or constitutional law.
Do you have any recommendations on narrowing my selection of a master degree?
Sincerely,
Alan Korematsu
. . . Currently, US Attorney Johnson is applying the same 14th Amendment
denial of “equal protection contributing to and causing “fourteenth
Amendment torture-death” threats against the Menchaca family as were
‘applied-unto-death’ by Attorney Generals Gonzales and Mukasey and Judge
Gray Miller against said captured U.S. Prisoners of War, U.S. Army PFC
Kristian Menchaca, PFC Thomas Tucker, PFC Joseph Anziak, Sgt. Keith Maupin,
PFC Byron Fouty, Spec. Alex Jimenez. Thus, this readily recognized U.S.
Executive Branch administrative application of the same 14th Amendment
denial of “equal protection causing “fourteenth Amendment torture-deaths”
against captured U.S. Prisoners of War should be stopped in its tracks and
not be allowed by this court to continue as a most evil and treacherous
“14th-Amendment-denial-treason” against the military soldiers of the United
States during wartime, more bloody and treasonable than any treason of
Benedict Arnold whose offense was a plan to surrender West Point to the
British, a plan never consummated like the skulking
“14th-Amendment-denial-treasons” created by the Bush Administration under
Ashcroft-Gonzales-Mukasey and the self-anointed U.S. District judge Miller,
outside his ministerial scope proscribed under USC Title 28 § 455, and
operated against unsuspecting men and women of the U.S. armed forces and now
apparently allowed by the Obama Administration to continue in effect.
The truth is that all captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War were tortured
to death as the consequence of heavily and intensely and repetitively
manipulated denials of their ‘Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional right to
equal life Rewards,’ denied to be equal to the same life Rewards the U.S.
offered for Terrorist Prisoners of War, U.S. POW denied equal life
opportunities to survive capture as the U.S. repeatedly offered on behalf of
“at-large” Terrorist Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S.
continues to offer said “Death Sentence Rewards” in a manner that denies
U.S. soldier Prisoners of War ‘U.S. Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional
rights’ to be assigned equal life Rewards equal to terrorist enemies of the
United States during War.
. . . Petitioners seek to present these Reward issues in crime complaint
information to a U.S. grand jury, which has been ignored, concealed, and
obstructed from the view of a Grand Jury by U.S. Attorney General,
obstructed by U.S. Attorney Tim Johnson and denied by U.S. Judge Gray Miller
usurping jurisdiction and acting in conflict of interest outside his
ministerial and discretionary scope of United States District Court Case No.
H-08-60, obstructed by FBI Director Mueller, and obstructed by former
Attorney General Mukasey.
. . . LITIGATING RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION FOR HOLY KAABA, MECCAH , &
RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION FOR ST. PETER’S, VATICAN :
. . . US Atty. Johnson’s “Victim Protection denial” was most obviously
perpetrated to manipulate Terrorists as ‘Johnson’s surrogate criminals’ to
attack the unprotected PFC Christian Menchaca family as a U.S. Justice
Department response against the Christian Menchaca family’s U.S. Claim
submitted to the U.S. Executive Branch & U.S. Court Case H-08-60 and
obviously perpetrated as US Atty. Johnson’s “Victim Protection denial” to
dissuade Petitioner Menchaca Family’s filing and litigation of U.S. Supreme
Court # 08-9595; and, said US Atty. Johnson’s “Victim Protection denial” is
also obviously a replica of the same type of (1) U.S. Executive Branch and ”
U.S.- administration-manipulated-murder-by-surrogate wherein (2) vile
death-causing denial-of-fourteenth-Amendment protection was corruptly
perpetrated by U.S. Executive Branch Attorney Generals Ashcroft-Gonzales and
Mukasey against captured U.S. Prisoners of War and also (3) perpetrated by
U.S. Judge Gray Miller, appointee of President GW Bush, against captured
U.S. Prisoners of War to manipulate terrorists as surrogate murderers who
murdered U.S. soldier Prisoners of War due to manipulated U.S. Reward
insufficiencies deliberately done to illustrate that the Bush Administration
was intent on sacrificing the lives of captured U.S. Prisoners of War to
prove the Bush motto “the U.S. does not deal with terrorists.”
. .Thus, U.S. Executive Branch Attorney Generals Gonzales and Mukasey and
Judge Gray Miller were all able to criminally manipulate torture deaths
against captured U.S. Prisoners of War by all of them using the technique of
denying the same 14th Amendment equal protection clause of the U.S.
Constitution in a manner that assured Terrorist Insurgents would torture to
death U.S. Army PFC Kristian Menchaca, PFC Thomas Tucker, PFC Joseph Anziak,
Sgt. Keith Maupin, PFC Byron Fouty, Spec. Alex Jimenez as consequence of
14th Amendment denials by Gonzales-Mukasey-Miller.
Dear Professor Turley,
Let me congragulate you on being one of the lucky few to have a photograph of
Our former President, G.W. Bush, in full Military uniform. In fact, the only time he ever wore his uniform was on
On Friday, May 02, 2003 when Bush landed his Navy S-3B Viking aircraft on the USS Abraham Lincoln.
. . . Everyone was impressed by the Commander In Cheif as he exited his aircraft, not just because
he had made a perfect landing but because he was the first Commander in Chief to ever wear a full military
uniform with the white Commander-in-Chief-feather as your rare photograph of him so eloquently attests.
. . .It may be true that clothes don’t make the man. But, a uniform certainly makes a president. Please
leave that photograph right where it is, so we can all remember the President as he was.
Sincerely,
Ken MacKenzie
{Post #3. See: http://www.christianmenchaca.com/publisher.php } Currently, all “volunteer” U.S. Soldiers in the U.S. Military are not
informed of said “U.S. “$50,000 Death Sentence Reward” treachery at their
“voluntary enlistment” as it is being operated against their lives by the
U.S. government who has corruptly betrayed captured U.S. Soldier Prisoners
of War and will corruptly betray them again at capture .
. . . It is obvious that said “U.S. “$50,000 Death Sentence Rewards” could
be math ‘balanced’ unto an “equal-condition” by lowering the Reward life
value of terrorist insurgents and increasing Reward life values for U.S.
soldier Prisoners of War or balanced by other means.
. . .U.S. soldier prisoners of War were ‘directly and indirectly’
administratively surrogate-murdered by U.S. Attorneys General
Ashcroft-Gonzales-Mukasey and U.S. District Judge Gray Miller who
administered said $50,000 Death Sentence Rewards and watched as audience in
the United States while said U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in Iraq were
tortured & hacked to death by terrorists effectively acting as
murderer-surrogates of Ashcroft-Gonzales-Mukasey & U.S. Judge Miller (see:
Supplemental Brief on Miller) under said U.S.-Executive Branch manipulated
$50,000 Death Sentence Rewards.
Ref the comments on the Stolen Valor Act. I would not think that speech uttered in pursuit of fraud to be protected. Wearing an unearned medal is akin to offering a false diploma to get a job. However artistic the diploma, is is still a fraud. The fact that the benefits to be gained thereby are intangible does not make it any less a fraud.
Slippery slope arguments need to be watched carefully. Keeping an eye on the power of Congress is no doubt a worthy goal, but the slippery slope is more often than not invoked to prevent even reasonable measures from being taken. Extreme gun right advocates protest background checks and registration requirements as the first step in finding and confiscating weapons. Abortion foes see federal funding for any abortion procedure as the first step to federally funded abortion-on-demand; abortion advocates see any limitation whatsoever on the procedure as the first step to government control of a woman’s body. In this case, the Stolen Valor Act is more akin to laws that prevent one from falsely representing one’s self as an officer of the law, or to laws preventing fraud, than to laws restricting free speech.
. . Dear Hiernonymous,
. . We are the lucky few of this blog to have a photograph available of our former President, G.W. Bush, in full Military uniform as depicted in the captioned black and white photo, above.
. . Regrettably, this photo is not in color; and, this deficiency prevents us from identifying the chest full of medals
That the Republican Party awarded to President G.W. Bush who so bravely led the charge of the Cheney-Halliburton Brigade into Iraq when the U.S. defeated Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
. . My guess is that his upper right medal was for the outflanking maneuver the CIC lead on behalf of General Motors. The next to the left looks like the Chrysler medal. Next, the mortgage Industry medal. Next, the debt ratio medal. Next, the Abu Grahib medal of Honor. Next, is the Gipper medal, which for most republicans is probably the most important medal of all. The other medals are just to resplendent to describe.
. . . The white Commander-in-Chief-feather has so many legends attached that it is really impossible to separate fact from religion as some people in the GOP refer to it as God’s tailfeather, others say it just grew right where it is after G.W. experienced his “Amazing Grace” in becoming a “Born Again Christian.”
. . .Whatever can be said, we might note that the only time our former President ever wore his uniform was on Friday, May 02, 2003, when Bush landed his Navy S-3B Viking aircraft on the USS Abraham Lincoln.
. . . Ronald Reagan never walked onto a stage with as much audience expectation.
. . . Everyone was impressed by our Commander In Chief Bush as he exited his aircraft, not just because he had made a perfect landing but because he was the first Commander in Chief to ever wear a full military uniform with the white Commander-in-Chief-feather as this rare photograph of him so eloquently attests.
. . .It may be true that clothes don’t make the man. But, a uniform certainly makes a president.
. . Please, let us keep this black and white photograph right where it is, so we can all remember the President as he was.
Sincerely,
Ken MacKenzie
Dear Ken,
Thank you for sharing that. I would like to direct Mr. Mike Appleton’s attention to your post; he didn’t understand why I post anonymously here.
Just a few comments and questions about federalism and health care.
How is the new health care law different from our social security law in relation to the principle of federalism?
I believe that the problem with federalism today is that the states are not viable entities. In order for federalism to work the sovereign units have to be able to deal with the real world problems and our problems go beyond state boundaries. It my be that if we truly value federalism, it is time to redraw boundaries so that we have fewer but larger districts that can deal with the problems we are facing.
How certain can it be that the constitutionality will be upheld given the majority of five now ruling the Supreme Court obviously bent on furthering a conservative/right wing agenda for this country. Is it time for another attempt to expand the membership of the court ala FDR?
Dear Professor Turley,
The proposed AZ state law allowing for enforcement of federal immigration policy by local law officers may be invalid on other grounds, but, in most places, even security officers are allowed to make what are referred to as “Terry Stops” for little or no, reason.
A Terry Stop involves little more than a polite conversation during which the officer decides whether or not the conversant presents “reasonable cause”.
With the conversant’s permission, an officer may also frisk (not search) the conversant to further determine whether or not the conversant presents reasonable cause.
If, during the Terry Stop, the officer determines that the conversant does present reasonable cause, the officer is justified in proceding with his investigation of the alleged incident.
So, it is not necessary to use profiling to find reasonable cause to investigate an incident and whether or not a person was party to a crime.
People who are here seeking asylum should be required to go straight to an consulate or embassy to request asylum or be subject to arrest and deportation.
They’re not.
But, they are required to state that they seek asylum, without prompting, when questioned by immigration authorities.
If they don’t they can and should be bounced.
Let’s get serious here. We just can’t continue to allow 3000 undocumented people to invade our country every night!
Sincerely,
Miles Monroe
I passed this in the Hawaii Legislature (with a lot of help). You like?
REQUESTING CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES TO PERMIT CONGRESS AND THE STATES TO
REGULATE THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY CORPORATIONS ENGAGING
IN POLITICAL SPEECH.
1 WHEREAS, free speech is a right exclusive to natural
2 persons, recognized and protected by the First Amendment of the
3 Constitution of the United States (U.S.); and
4
5 WHEREAS, corporations are not natural persons, but rather
6 legal entities granted conditional rights by society through the
7 legislative deliberations of Congress and the States; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of Hawaii has grave
10 concerns regarding the implications of the Supreme Court of the
11 U.S. I decision in its five to four ruling in Citizens United v.
12 Federal Elections Commission; and
13 ;
14 WHEREAS, this decision threatens to invalidate the
15 legislative deliberations of Congress and the States to restrict
16 the influence of corporate power on the political system; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the opinion of the four dissenting justices noted
19 that corporations have certain privileges not enjoyed by natural
20 persons, such as limited liability, perpetual life, and
21 favorable treatment of their accumulation and distribution of
22 assets, which financially enables them to overwhelm individual,
23 natural persons in the political process; and
24
25 WHEREAS, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be
26 overturned by legislation; now, therefore,
27
28 BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the
29 Twenty-fifth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, the Senate
30 concurring, that the Legislature respectfully requests that the
31 U.S. Congress propose and send to the states for ratification a
HCR282 HD1 HMS 2010-3138
Page 2 H.C.R. NO. 282
H.D.1
1 constitutional amendment to clarify the distinction between the
2 rights of natural persons and the rights of corporations,
3 thereby preserving the power of Congress and the States to place
4 limits on the ability of corporations to influence the outcome
5 of elections through political expenditures; and
6
7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certifies copies of this
8 Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the President and Vice
9 President of the United States, to the Speaker of the United
10 States House of Representatives, and to Hawaii’s Congressional
11 Delegation.
HCR282
. . .On Constitutional Law:
. .If I understand correctly, the 18th Amendment legislated a long list of lagal alcohol & drugs mixed with alcohol as “illegal” wines and cough medicines, such as Cocaine Wine, Marijuana Wine, Marijuana Cough Medicine, Heroin Wine, Marijuana & Cocaine mixed in Wine & other drugs mixed in Cough medicines, all as criminal offenses.
. .Then, after Americans became angry at the gangster era created by the criminalization of Marijuana, Cocain, Heroin, Morphine, the 21st Amendment was passed to repeal the 18th Amendment and repeal all the language of the 18th that made
drugs mixed with alcohol and the other schedule of Drugs “illegal,” thereby reverting them back to their status of a “legal” condition as before the 18th Amendment was passed.
. . Thus, if the 21st Amendment brought all of these 18th Amendment Drugs back to legal status same as they were before the infamous 18th Amendment was passed, then they were made legal under the 21st Amendment and no laws could be passed making them “illegal” again without repealing the 21st Amendment.
. . Yes ? or NO ? ? ?
. . .If the Drug Laws of Title 21 have resurrected those Drug laws of the 18th Amendment without first repealing the 21st Amendment, aren’t a lot of the Drug enforcement Laws of USC Title 21 in violation of the 21st Amendment that made them legal as they were legal before the 18th Amendment made them illegal?
. . Would it be a compelling and correct defense to cite these Constitutional conditions as a defense in Marijuana possession Crime cases? Cocain Crime cases? Etcetera.
. . So, if the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment with its associated long list of Drugs: Marijuana, Cocain, Morphine, Heroine, and so forth, bringing Marijuana, Cocain, Morphine, Heroine, and so forth, back to legal and lawful status, it is reasonable to say that the 21st Amendment is the law of the land and all of the drugs legislated as unlawful under Title 21 Drug schedules that were repealed when the 18th Amendment was repealed, cannot be legislated as illegal until the 21st Amendment is repealed.
.. . For those of you who have an informed opinion after reading the 18th and its restrictive legislation, let’s hear it.
As a GW grad, thanks!
Ken
News Article: Man indicted after 219 marijuana plants found in home By Steve Kanigher (contact) Wednesday, May 12, 2010 | 11:58 a.m.
A federal grand jury Tuesday indicted a North Las Vegas man for growing an estimated 219 marijuana plants in his home.
. . http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/may/12/man-indicted-after-219-marijuana-plants-found-home/#comments
Comment: In fact and in truth, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment with its associated long list of Drugs — Marijuana, Cocain, Morphine, Heroine, and so forth — bringing Marijuana, Cocain, Morphine, Heroin, and so forth, like alcohol, back to legal and lawful status and therefore the wrongful illegal classification of these drugs as “illegal” was repealed by the 21st Amendment. It is reasonable to say that the 21st Amendment is the law of the land and all of the drugs legislated as “illegal,” later, under Title 21 Drug schedules, were inproperly and unconstitutionally legislated in violation of the 21st amendment. The current Title 21 Drug schedules are unconstitutional as they were written after the 21st Amendment repealed them along with the 18th Amendment.
. .Title 21 type Drug schedules were repealed when the 18th Amendment was repealed and cannot be legislated as illegal until the 21st Amendment is repealed. The 21st Amendment did not have language allowing ressurection of any part of the infamous 18th Amendment.
. . In essence, the 21st. Amendment permanently legalized the long list of Drugs, Marijuana, Cocain, Morphine, Heroine, and so forth by repealing the 18th Amendment and its laws that tainted these drugs by identifying these drugs as “ILLEGAL” under the 18th Amendment.
. .The California Supreme court noted in its ruling that the California law allowing Medical Marijuana did not have language that allowed it to be interpreted or amended to restrict possession of any amount.
. .The 21st Amendment cannot be likewise amended to rewrite drug schedules that were repealed along with the 18th amendment.
. . Under Constitutional law, the 21st Amendment must be repealed before Congress can write United States Code Title 21 to ressurect the drugs that the 21st Amendment returned to legal status and are still 21st Amendment legal until the 21st Amendment is repealed.
. .Congress cannot write drug laws in Title 21 as if the 18th Amendment was still alive and these Title 21 laws violate the 21st Amendment.
. . .The current Title 21 laws violate the 21st Amendment which repealed the current Title 21 drug laws when the 21st Amendment was passed.
http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m6d6-BP-buys-Google-Yahoo-search-engine-words-to-keep-people-away-from-real-news-on-Gulf-oil-spill-disas
Isnt this unConstitutional be controlling the info available to the public?
Whoa! Image searching yahoo and google all night because of this and i ultimately found it the following!
hello.
is there a contact email for this blog’s Moderator?
I just need it to request the removal of some rude, offensive stuff that is only detracting from this blog’s scholastic integrity.
thanks
Informative post.It’s great that one can communicate so well. In my opinion, writing with this topic hasn’t exactly been the wonderful. I found you on Yahoo!.
Mr. Turley,
Please allow me to express my great appreciation for your thoughtful and most important Constitutionally centrist columns. I recently read the 5/3/11 USA Today article, “The demon is dead; so are many of our rights”. An excellent read, in a national paper – albeit I admit on page 11a, when this should be the cover story.
The gross expansion of governmental powers and clear violations of liberties by our local, state and federal governments, further espoused by the dumbing of society by a constant stream and perpetual focus on matters of little import (I.e.: prince Henry marriage, Michelle Jackson death, sports, etc.) amplified by a gov’t sediment, that the rule of law is only applicable when it fits the suitors needs, completely in violation of the principles that this country was founded on.
I appreciate such a clear line of direction, to know that not all hope is lost. I am only 25 but truly fear that China will have a freer society and associations then will be afforded to the citizens of this country before I die. We need individuals such as yourself, who are articulate, intelligent and truly understand the values that America was founded do NOT waver in turbulent times to lead this country.
I want, no we need to instill, these values within the minds of every citizen, not the details of every play run by sports star xyz. Who certainly are helping this cause – my question to you is how do we increase the prominence of your respected message?
Regards,
Citizen of NY
______________________________
“Rebellion to tyrants is Obedience to God” – Mr. Benjamin Franklin
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of people under the pretense of taking care of them” 3rd US President Mr. Thomas Jefferson
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.” – 3rd US President Mr. Thomas Jefferson
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety” – Mr. Benjamin Franklin
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty” – 3rd US President Mr. Thomas Jefferson
The powerful are SUPPOSEDLY required by federal law to obey the law. De facto, they can just ignore the law, or in Thomas’ case, just say Oops!
Love your work, keep up the good fight!
Can you explain to me how Wisconson can put fake Democrats on a ballot? This does not seem right to me, and to tell people that they are fake. What the Republicans have been able to get away with has just been unbelievable. It would seem to me that this is not legal.
All fake dems are defeated in Wisconsin, reds.
About sister wives and polygamy:
The best article I have ever read about this is one written by Charles Krauthammer a few years back.Pandora and Polygamy in The Jewish World Review-March 17,2006.It is solid.
I am thinking about sending another petition to the Supreme Court of a recent 10th Circuit ruling that they have the authority to approve sanctions that use unpublished procedures including Rule 11 judgments without Rule 11 (c)(6) orders and restraining orders that don’t comply with Rule 65(d). They actually ruled that it doesn’t matter if a judgment labeled Rule 11 doesn’t have a Rule 11(c)(6) order. When I read articles like this I have less faith in the Supreme Court. Of course, I also don’t understand how they can receive more than 1,000 petitions per justice per year and have time to have even one justice read each one. So why don’t they at least disclose how they select petitions that they read?
I think the result of the current problems in federal courts will be murders. I was totally screwed over because I sued a convicted drug dealer who was in local government office for First Amendment Retaliation. He was my neighbor. I looked up “neighbors” + “shooting”, on the Internet and there were an unbelievable number of accounts. One of them recounted how the shooter got only 4 years of probation. 20-20 reported on a group that advocates that citizens have the right to kill repressive government rulers. I personally have been a gun control advocate my entire life and I am afraid of guns and my vision isn’t so great so I personally would not murder my former neighbor. However, I am convinced that I personally would be better off today if I had murdered him than I was filing truthful complaints in federal court. When I did, I was ordered to pay $101K in legal fees because it was implausible that there was government corruption, or that my neighbor was a drug dealer (although it was later revealed that he was a convicted drug dealer) and therefore my document evidence could not be accepted and my summary judgment motions were not supposed to be responded to. As we all know, there is a lot of government corruption. Federal courts are supposed to be a safe place to complain about government corruption. Now that they are not safe, a certain percentage of aggrieved citizens will at least try to get revenge.
I was very pleased to find this.I wanted to thanks for your time for this glorious read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit it.
Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my cousin were just preparing to do a little research on this. We got a book from our area library but I think I learned better from this post. I’m very glad to see such magnificent info being shared freely out there..
hello,what an excellent article this is,I found it on bing and I love it very much,I agree with you, lots of things will be learned form your site,but I still have some questions with the last part,can you explain it for me ?I will appreciate your answer,and I will be back again!
Mr.Turley, With so many repubs.signing the Grover norquist tax pledge,is there any legal recourse the citizens of the U.S.to use our constitution to stop this? How can a fringe group like this bring our gov. to a standstill. We can’t survive as a country on the road we’re on now. thank you,judy malone.
I simply had to thank you very much yet again. I’m not certain the things that I would have created in the absence of these pointers contributed by you concerning that industry. Certainly was a very fearsome case in my opinion, but taking note of this specialised technique you solved it took me to jump with delight. Now i’m happy for the assistance and thus have high hopes you really know what a powerful job you were undertaking instructing the others using your site. I am sure you have never met any of us.
test.
In reference to this comment posted: “Judy Giglio has worked for Shallow Draft, owned by Paul Molinary. Now actively endorsing Dave Peralta for Parish President, also a realtor and has reasons for the connected to win.”
As the owner of Shallow Draft I am asking you to remove this post, since I have NEVER employed, or nor do I know who Judy Giglio or Paul Molinary is. Here at Shallow Draft we are not looking to take sides or use our company name in any advertising for any campaign.
Also, we don NOT have any relation to the person who gave you this information. I do not want to give my resourse.
Thank You & Please remove this post.
Angelina Geraci
Owner of Shallow Draft
..
In reference to this comment posted on Sunday at 10:37pm: “Judy Giglio has worked for Shallow Draft, owned by Paul Molinary. Now actively endorsing Dave Peralta for Parish President, also a realtor and has reasons for the connected to win.”
As the owner of Shallow Draft I am asking you to remove this post, since I have NEVER employed, or nor do I know who Judy Giglio or Paul Molinary is. Here at Shallow Draft we are not looking to take sides or use our company name in any advertising for any campaign.
Also, we don NOT have any relation to the person who gave you this information. I do not want to give my resourse.
Thank You & Please remove this post.
Angelina Geraci
Owner of Shallow Draft
..
Angelina Geraci, make your argument, but do not expect a comment or post to be deleted. Ain’t gonna happen. This is a legal blog dedicated to the free expressions of ideas, opinions and speech. If you have an argument to make, I suggest you make it.
Exceptional writing! I just want to know if you have twitter, tumblr or facebook page so I could follow you? And maybe follow me back if you would want to. Thanks!
Prof. Turley, I’ve been absent from your blog for some time. Have you (or could you) issued a report card on President Obama visa visa the rule of law. Besides killing American citizens in the name of protecting us has he
continuing Bush’s warrantless wiretaping ? AG Holder seems to have done nothing on the Wall Street control fraud front, but he has rounded up plenty of “illegals”. To be blunt, my sense is that he’s GWB in black face.
Am I being too extreme? Comparing DOJ’s is America’s Constitution safer?
Hello there, just was alert to your blog via Google, and found that it is really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I will be grateful for those who continue this in future. Numerous folks will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Reading of this Presidential power to kill U.S. citizens overseas, I now see the President is free to authorize murder, yet waterboarding etc is ruled out as an international crime.
The President can authorize indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation techiques of ANYONE even in the U.S., can authorize killing of ANYONE labelled a terrorist, as long as overseas, but just can’t do what Bush did – openly authorize outright torture.
Jose Padilla was turned into a vegetable by Donald Rumsfield via years of total isolation and sensory deprivation, drugs, and yet 11th circuit court of maniacs (Sept. 19 2011) demands he be put away forever due to prior street crimes.
Regarding your piece on the right of citizens to video police in public; if the police can use dash cams to video citizens in public, then I think citizens have every right to video police in public. Now, before anyone brands me as a flaming liberal, I will tell you that I am a retired police chief, and was one of the first in our state to use dash cams. They make good evidence and I am still in favor of using them in police cars. But, fair is fair.
Hello there, I discovered your web site by way of Google while searching for a related topic, your website came up, it seems good. I’ve added to favourites|added to my bookmarks.
Security + is a good stepping stone certification covers a lot of basic ideas that might be beneficial if you lack any security experience. If you’ve passed the CCNA and are thinking to get into the security field, CCSP is definitely the way to go providing you want a vendor specific certification. Otherwise CISSP or even CEH (which honestly, I don’t know how in-demand this certification is).
hi!,I love your writing so so much! percentage we be in contact extra about your post on AOL? I require a specialist in this house to resolve my problem. May be that is you! Looking forward to peer you.
EYEMAX-plus is not a cure and it is not medicine. Instead it works to build up your eyes’ health by giving your eyes and body the nutrients they need for optimal health.Of course, the best thing to do is to prevent a cataract from beginning by starting EYEMAX-plus sooner. Once a cataract has started forming, different people experience different results: Some stabilize, keep it from getting worse and avoid the need for surgery. Others watch they doctors test their eyes and find that the cataract decreases in size, or disappears altogether.
Two questions, Professor Turley – I saw some of your C-Span interview and I’d like to know – do you endorse Ron Paul? And would you be willing to appear on The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report?
I believe everyone should be given the freedom of speech. Every one has the right to express themselves. However, if such comments or jokes will affect a certain community, we might as well avoid making any comments. We should respect each one’s beliefs and must accept them. Making people the joke of a comic or an editorial is not the best way to respect each other.
On the other hand, it’s good that Pres. Obama did something about discrimination issues. However, I’m not sure if his plans were the best solution to solve this problem.
http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/12647/behind-you-man-look-behind-you/
This blog article about your Dec. 19 appearanceon Washington View points out a possible UFO that may have been watching you!
I do heartly believe that my civil rights were so violated By The State Of Montana, Hill County, and others that not one attnorney is willing to help me as their excuse is I have too live here to so I will not jeoperdize my career to help you. The rights violated were: Maranda rights, right of self incimination, double jeopardy amoung others. I was on probation and my probation officer was also the officer for the alleged victim. She can not be on both sides of the isle at the same time yet my objections were finally herd and the case dismissed without prejadise. and mush more I need help and am tired of being pushed around and
I have learn several excellent stuff here. Definitely worth bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much attempt you set to make the sort of excellent informative website.
I do trust all of the concepts you have presented on your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are too brief for novices. Could you please prolong them a little from next time? Thank you for the post.
Magnificent goods from you, man. I have consider your stuff previous to and you’re just too wonderful. I really like what you’ve acquired right here, certainly like what you are saying and the best way by which you say it. You make it entertaining and you continue to care for to stay it sensible. I can not wait to learn much more from you. That is actually a great site.
My brother suggested I might like this website. He was totally right. This publish actually made my day. You cann’t consider just how so much time I had spent for this info! Thank you!
Want your freedom back? Elect Ron Paul
http://the420message.com/
No if you want your Freedom back Elect Obama and let him crush this country so we can finally rebuild. Another conservative is not the answer as they have no solutions but to appease Big Business. Corruption runs deep.
Who is John Galt
Real Estate IDX
I will right away seize your rss feed as I can not find your email subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please permit me realize in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.
This is really attention-grabbing, You are an overly skilled blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to in search of more of your magnificent post. Additionally, I have shared your website in my social networks