No Knock Warrants... Cop = Judge, Jury & Executioner by 6ixStringJack

We're stretched kinda thin right now, but gimme some time to shake the PA state legislature tree and we'll see if any coconuts fall out.

I am up to my eyes in the other mess, and have a responsibility to those folk, so we can't put all hands on it.

I'd reccommend making contact with William N. Grigg on this one as well, and see if he will expound at length cause I do believe he would have an interest and he could get it quite a bit of exposure, which'd help a lot.

They're going about it wrong though, when the State stops playing by the rules, no amount of legal representation is gonna do the job, you need to get in above those guys and threaten their cushy employment if you wanna put the arm on them, and that means State legislators.

Certain elements of PA police force corruption are already on the "to-do" list and several folks local the situation who are uninvolved with the TX matter might also have useful info, so I'll check in with them, but we're unlikely to get any major motion on this till prolly Tuesday or later, for reasons I ain't at liberty to share.

I know that ain't a lot to offer, but we'll see, basically try to force exposure of the story, cause that riles up the citizenry and causes them to get in the ass of their representatives, who then get off their ass and act just to stop the bitchin... make sure they go STATE level though, not federal, or it'll bog down in a different system and become all manner of hassle to sort out.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:39 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thanks for anything you can do Frem. lol... you work fast man. I'm sure a guy in dire straits isn't going to sweat help if he's only got to wait until Tuesday or so to get it.

I'll give 'em your advice about upping the level and exposure on this instead of wasting time and any available funds on a lawer/case that he's going to lose in the first place. Won't tell him where I got it from though.

Mr. Grigg from Payette? If that's the guy, I like him already from what I've read.

Gotta run with your advice on this one man, and if they're smart they'll consider it too. After that kid getting out of the system just a short while after we talked..... Ain't saying you did nothin', just saying that it's one hell of a coincidence is all.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:29 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Tragic story here in Atlanta where cops busted down the door of a 92 yr lady and shot her to death, on a no-knock warrant. Her address was mistakenly given by a drug informant, who claimed there were drugs in the house. Cops busted down the door, unannounced, and she, not knowing who the intruders were, tried to defend herself by utilizing her 2nd Amendment Rights. The cops shot back, and killed her.

No drugs were found in the house.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:12 AM

That'd be Ms Kathryn Johnson, Rap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston

And yeah, that caused a whole mess of stuff to spill out, and lead to some badly needed housecleaning in that department, but sadly, it was a little to late to help HER any, alas.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 11, 2008 12:29 PM

So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....

Chrisisall

Hey, drugs are bad, mmmmkay? So, don't do drugs, or else. Mmmmkay?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:38 PM

Thanks for the non-sequitur, AU.
I can always use spares.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 10:35 AM

No-Knock-warrants, SWAT teams, unreliable informants and rubber stamping judges are a recipe for casualties, but what I want to know is if a cop can mistakenly shoot an innocent civilian in the course of duty given reasonable cause and not be prosecuted as a murderer, then why can’t a man use deadly force to protect his family from multiple unannounced armed assailants breaking into his house?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why can’t a man use deadly force to protect his family from multiple unannounced armed assailants breaking into his house?

Fascism....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
why can’t a man use deadly force to protect his family from multiple unannounced armed assailants breaking into his house?
Fascism.…

No.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No.

The authorities don't want you to stub your toe in an attempt to defend your family, then?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No.

The authorities don't want you to stub your toe in an attempt to defend your family, then?

The US is not a fascist state, Chris.

Is it possible for you and certain others to criticize the US or Bush without shooting off into some extremist fringe? Is every criticisms of the US capitalized for some anti-American rhetoric?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....

I think low level martial law's been around for decades, but not widely known. It became known and supported by people at large after 9/11.

Cause you know, anything to prevent terrorism from happening again. And six degrees of terrorism allow everything to be tied to it, including the war on drugs.

Cops have always been like this. We just haven't heard much about it. Internet helps.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 12:21 PM

He's just calling it like he sees it, Finn.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers...

Until proven otherwise, imma call it a fuckin duck, right-O ?

You got some OTHER theory that fits the facts, then I'd sure like to hear it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
He's just calling it like he sees it, Finn.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers...

Until proven otherwise, imma call it a fuckin duck, right-O ?

You got some OTHER theory that fits the facts, then I'd sure like to hear it.

Corruption? Abuse of authority? You like to pretend you’re calling a duck a duck, but you’re calling a duck an alligator and trivializing yourself and your cause. Right-O?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 12, 2008 2:03 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
So, exactly WHEN was low-level martial law declared again? I seem to have missed it....
I think low level martial law's been around for decades, but not widely known. It became known and supported by people at large after 9/11.

Don't forget to tell them about the gold fringe on the flag. I mean, what more evidence do you need, we're talkin gold fringe!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:50 AM

Working:

Gag order's been downed, never shoulda had one on a case like this in the first place.

Pulled a few folk off other website work to pass the word and wild the story, making sure to hit up other activists that'd likely take an interest.

And some state politicos gonna get an earful soon as they show up today.

Apparently the entirety of the "evidence" is some baggies and a kitchen food scale - I call bullshit and submit that you can find THOSE items in almost any kitchen in america, and considering such mundane things evidence of drug trafficking is as asinine as considering a cigarette lighter evidence of arson.

This one's gonna be a bit trickier cause the guy ain't no angel so you don't get the sympathy vote from the holier than thou masses - but on the other hand, the sheer *amount* of dirt that can be turned on the Little Rock PD is kinda impressive, these guys are laughably crooked, and not even any good at hiding it.

The way this one is probably gonna go, is some asshole plea-deal in exchange for not pulling a conga line of skeletons out of the local PD's closet, is what it looks like, but we'll find out soon enough.

And for those that made comment that this particular PD doesn't act like a buncha Fascists, remember that these are the guys who pulled this crap.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2008/04/05/News/345838.html
I don't have the transcript handy, but if I recall correctly the officer in question was almost comically stupid and abusive about it.

Hassling the media doesn't help much neither.
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/mar/27/trooper-who-arrested-j
ournalist-suspended-reassign/

But the real jackboot crown jewel comes from Carroll County.
http://www.lovelycitizen.com/story/1251762.html

Not to mention one sheriff in trouble for misuse of the database, another officer in trouble for tasering a cow and videotaping it for entertainment purposes, and lets not even talk about that pervo Trotter - there's a freakin laundry list so bit it's just overkill for the purpose at hand really.

So yes, upon further examination, the accusation of fascist behavior stands - the AK police as a whole, and specifically Little Rock and Bentonville, are almost as bad a pack of goons as Rampart was.

And if they'd like to keep a lid on that, they'll be cutting a deal with mister ingels.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
This one's gonna be a bit trickier cause the guy ain't no angel so you don't get the sympathy vote from the holier than thou masses

Those are the people cops like to pick on for these types of abuses. You get into trouble once, and you might as well paint a bullseye on your forehead. If you don't have a lot of money, you might as well bend over and grab your ankles and get it over with. If you don't have a lot of friends nearby, then just tattoo "FUBAR" on your butt. That's where Tracy is: FUBAR.

Here's another case of fascism in this country. According to Wikipedia:

Quote:
The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 last year, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky.

Now these are special warrants issued under exigent circumstances. Apparently, the meaning of exigent is not what it used to be.

Fascism is not all or nothing. You don't have to have the Third Reich before you call it "fascist." In the last 40-50 years, I'd say the USA has been slowly but steadily moving towards increasing fascism. Then in 1991, the pace changed to double-time, or faster.

Read this and see if you don't see the USA in it just a bit, and growing more like it everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

We're not flagrantly repressing opposition yet, but don't mistake that for not repressing opposition at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
We're not flagrantly repressing opposition yet, but don't mistake that for not repressing opposition at all.

The US is not a state that could be characterized as having a tendency towards or exercising strong autocratic control by a centralized authority, severe economic and social regimentation or forcible suppression of opposition. If you say the US is a fascist state, you will look stupid. It is not true. It makes you look as if you have no real understanding of the issues and as a result the opinions and criticisms about the US from people that use that kind of anti-American rhetoric don’t receive nor deserve any real consideration. It’s nothing more then the punditry equivalent of name-calling.

The discussion of whether the US is heading in that direction is perhaps an interesting one, but at this point in this discussion it is nothing more then an excuse to justify already fanatical and ridiculous language. If you can't recognize that the US is not fascist, you sure as hell can't reasonably assess whether it's moving in that direction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:38 AM

Quote:
The US is not a state that could be characterized as having a tendency towards or exercising strong autocratic control by a centralized authority, severe economic and social regimentation or forcible suppression of opposition.

First of all, just because YOU'VE never personally experienced these aspects of the USA doesn't mean others haven't or that it is not there. Ask anyone who has had his life ruined by the DEA or the IRS or the FBI or any of the alphabet agencies, and you might get a different perspective on forcible suppression and severe economic regimentation or centralized autocratic control. I have a friend who spent 1 year in prison for speaking out against the income tax. The pretext for sending him to prison was "failure to file," but the real reason was made clear when authorities granted him a more lenient sentence in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing all sales of his video. And there is absolutely no illegal content on his website or video. So, from where I stand, I see forcible suppression of oppositional speech.

Quote:
If you can't recognize that the US is not fascist, you sure as hell can't reasonably assess whether it's moving in that direction.

Like I said, it is not all fascist or not fascist at all. It is a continuum, and where it stands on the continuum depends on one's personal perspective (ask Tracy Ingle, for example, how fascist the country is). The USA is somewhat fascist, and getting more fascist with time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Like I said, it is not all fascist or not fascist at all. It is a continuum, and where it stands on the continuum depends on one's personal perspective (ask Tracy Ingle, for example, how fascist the country is). The USA is somewhat fascist, and getting more fascist with time.

No. Fascism has a definition, and the US does not meet hardly any of the criteria to be called Fascist. Just because people throw it around irresponsibly doesn’t mean it applies to the US, it just means those people are dumb and/or operating on an agenda. If you wish to criticism the US then I might entertain reasonable criticism perhaps even offer some of my own, but not outright fabrication.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have a friend who spent 1 year in prison for speaking out against the income tax. The pretext for sending him to prison was "failure to file," but the real reason was made clear when authorities granted him a more lenient sentence in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing all sales of his video. And there is absolutely no illegal content on his website or video. So, from where I stand, I see forcible suppression of oppositional speech.

Never happened. Either you made it all up to make a point or your friend lied to you to make himself look like a victim.

Simply put, there is no law against speaking out against the income tax. Millions do it every year. Your friend 'failed to file' and that is a crime. The two issues are not related. If he got a deal its probably because he filed his taxes to correct the problem, when I prosecute folks for this I always give them a deal when they correct their mistake (its an easy mistake to make at the City level...the IRS is less understanding).

There are legitimate problems with the country. One of them is abuse of government power. Another one is people embellishing or lying about the abuse of government power.

So lets make a deal you and me...I promise to not abuse my power today (except with regard to PirateNews) and you promise not to lie or embellish or pass on stories that you have not verified as 100% accurate (except about Dick Cheney).

As for No Knock warrants...I attended the Police Memorial Service today for National Peace Officers Memorial Day (which is on May 15th...making this National Police Week). No knock warrants are rarely used here...most recently to raid a Meth Lab where we had confirmed by confidential informant that they had firearms. The raid was conducted, nobody got hurt, and we seized a large Meth Lab and a number of weapons including an assault rifle (AK-47). Its a matter of safety. We send police into really ugly situations and they were getting shot when they knocked...so we as a society said "then don't knock". Duh.

"Doctor my arms hurts when I do this."
"Then don't do that." (Laugh track)
"I want a second opinion."
"Ok, your ugly too." (Laugh track)

Officer safety is a very serious public concern...almost as important to the public as it is to the Officer's family. Its generally not as important to the criminals. Accidents happen, people get hurt or killed, the solution is not to give up on crime or stop policing...the solution is to give officers the very best training and equipment possible and the room to learn from the mistakes they make and adapt to new tactics and technolgy as they become available.

No matter their training, equipment, tactics, or what situations they find themselves in...the first rule of police work remains the same: 'at the end of your shift, go home alive'.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Fascism has a definition, and the US does not meet hardly any of the criteria to be called Fascist.

You don't modulate well intellectually, do you?

The USA meets the criteria in some situations some of the time. Not all situations, not all the time. Not even most situations, most of the time. That is what "somewhat" means.

The concern is that the country is meeting the criteria in more and more situations, more and more of the time. Again, think continuum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Never happened. Either you made it all up to make a point or your friend lied to you to make himself look like a victim.

.. you promise not to lie or embellish or pass on stories that you have not verified as 100% accurate

I have known my friend for over 12 years, and I am 100% sure he is not lying. If you are willing to give me your email address, I can put you in touch with my friend, who can discuss the details with you.

Don't believe it if you don't want to. But it is ugly and lazy to accuse me of lying just because you don't believe a court is capable of going outside the law. "Liar, liar, pants on fire" is not a very rigorous argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:42 AM

JONGSSTRAW

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Never happened. Either you made it all up to make a point or your friend lied to you to make himself look like a victim.

.. you promise not to lie or embellish or pass on stories that you have not verified as 100% accurate
I have known my friend for over 12 years, and I am 100% sure he is not lying. If you are willing to give me your email address, I can put you in touch with my friend, who can discuss the details with you.

As a guess, your friend advocated not paying taxes and being a principled type didn't file. Subsequently he was prosecuted for failing to file, which the government saw as tax evasion and your friend saw as a free speech issue. I would note that there are very few places in the world no matter how liberal where failing to pay taxes is tolerated. I think the US may be one of the few places that will jail you for it though (as opposed to just taking the money from your income.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have known my friend for over 12 years, and I am 100% sure he is not lying.

So you want to believe him. He's your friend and he's saying something you find credible because it fits a preconcieved world view. I suppose that in 12 years he's never lied to you. Nobody EVER lies I guess...at least not your friends.

Post his case number and the jurisdiction and we'll look at the docket. Lot of truth posted in online public records these days.

Quote:

But it is ugly and lazy to accuse me of lying just because you don't believe a court is capable of going outside the law.

I accused you OR your friend of lying OR embellishing the truth. I did it because I've heard the story before from Crazy talkers who claim this, that, or the other thing to make themselves look good or sympathetic. Many times it the friend or friend of a friend with no more basis in reality then when they claimed they scored with this girl or that one. Yeah...he's ugly too...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Subsequently he was prosecuted for failing to file, which the government saw as tax evasion and your friend saw as a free speech issue.

Oh no, you misunderstand. He didn't file as a matter of principle, and he was fully prepared to pay the consequences of not filing. As Hero said, not filing has nothing to do with free speech--legally speaking.

The free speech issue came in when the judge (I believe, though it could have been the prosecutor--I'll have to ask my friend who exactly) offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
We're not flagrantly repressing opposition yet, but don't mistake that for not repressing opposition at all.
The US is not a state that could be characterized as having a tendency towards or exercising strong autocratic control by a centralized authority, severe economic and social regimentation or forcible suppression of opposition. If you say the US is a fascist state, you will look stupid. It is not true.

I think it's flat-out too disturbing for you to see that that's the direction BushCo is bent on steering us toward.

Just sayin'isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

That's a gray area that those in power can easily change to black or white at a whim....

Golden Ruleisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Subsequently he was prosecuted for failing to file, which the government saw as tax evasion and your friend saw as a free speech issue.
Oh no, you misunderstand. He didn't file as a matter of principle, and he was fully prepared to pay the consequences of not filing. As Hero said, not filing has nothing to do with free speech--legally speaking.

The free speech issue came in when the judge (I believe, though it could have been the prosecutor--I'll have to ask my friend who exactly) offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

Are you sure that's what happened exactly? I'm sure if he gives incorrect legal or financial advice "The income tax is illegal and so you dont have to pay it" for example, he can probably be brought up on numberous secondary charges (at least in the UK if you encourage someone to commit a criminal act you can be considered a conspirator to that act even if you never actually do anything yourself, it's a common law principle and I suspect you have it too.)

So was it "I'll go easy on your tax evasion if you pull down your website" or was it "I will drop these additional solicitation charges if you drop the website?"

This may seem ironic to you but the judge may even have been doing your friend a favour. If you shot someone and then put up a website gloating about it I'm pretty sure you would get the maximum sentence. If your friend broke the law on "principle" and then gloated or encouraged others with his website he's looking at the same kind of issue. The judge could have said something like "you know this website agrivates the crime for which you have been convicted, keep it up and I'll have no choice but to give you maximum sentence, if you bring it down this court may see this as contrition when it comes to sentencing."

Oh, and you friend should have told them to stuff their deal if he believed in his cause that much. Otherwise he's just scoring points to make himself look good amongst his peers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I think it's flat-out too disturbing for you to see that that's the direction BushCo is bent on steering us toward.

No.

I entered this thread with the intent of discussing how much I don’t like no-knock warrants, but instead, I’m faced with a couple of crazies who refuse to permit themselves to entertain any discussion of the State’s use of power that doesn't involve admitting to lies about some fantasy fascism. So if anyone can’t see something - it’s you. But why? What makes you hate the US so much that you are dead set on describing it with such negative fabrications?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Fascism has a definition, and the US does not meet hardly any of the criteria to be called Fascist.
You don't modulate well intellectually, do you?

This from the person whose capacity for critical thought doesn’t extend beyond the political equivalent of name-calling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If your friend broke the law on "principle" and then gloated or encouraged others with his website he's looking at the same kind of issue. The judge could have said something like "you know this website agrivates the crime for which you have been convicted, keep it up and I'll have no choice but to give you maximum sentence, if you bring it down this court may see this as contrition when it comes to sentencing."

I am asking my friend for more details now on exactly what was offered, so I can explain it more precisely.

This is what I do know for a fact. I read almost every word on that website, and the website had absolutely nothing illegal in it. He was meticulously careful not to give any tax advice, for precisely the potential scenarios you cited. His website presented some citations of federal law, encouraged visitors to read said federal law, explained his interpretation of the law, and encouraged visitors to come to their own interpretation. That is it. No more, no less.

Maybe the judge did erroneously see the website as an aggravation of a crime. But deciding that the website was also criminal, without evidence and a conviction, is beyond the limits of his bench. No matter what his reasoning, he restricted free speech based on his interpretation only, without due process. Maybe some here would think that is not so bad, but that is exactly the point I'm making. We're slipping into rationalizing for the govt's abuses and increasing fascism.

Regarding what he should have done when presented with the offer, well, that is neither here nor there. He has principles, and he was willing to go to prison for them. He also lives in a real world with a real family who depended on him, so I don't think anyone here needs to judge what he should have done in taking the offer. Those types of decisions, how far are you willing to go in protest and civil disobedience, are very personal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Maybe the judge did erroneously see the website as an aggravation of a crime. But deciding that the website was also criminal, without evidence and a conviction, is beyond the limits of his bench. No matter what his reasoning, he restricted free speech based on his interpretation only, without due process. Maybe some here would think that is not so bad, but that is exactly the point I'm making. We're slipping into rationalizing for the govt's abuses and increasing fascism.

You don't have an infinite right to free speech even in the real world. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded movie theatre and you can't use your website to solicit others to commit crimes. I suspect the problem is that ideologically neither you nor your friend accept the law that makes what he's doing illegal and consequently you view it's application as an abridgment of your rights. My guess is that they could probably have added X years for the website, your friend was offered a deal and he took it for all the reasons you said. Now that's over he's playing the free speech card.

If I post a website giving someone's personal details, their daily patterns and the suggestion that person should really be murdered, I can be tried at least for solicitation even if no murder takes place. If the intent of the site is to encourage others to commit a felony even if the author is not involved directly then you have a problem. I suspect criminal solicitation is not protected speech.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I suspect criminal solicitation is not protected speech.

Good effing grief. How many times do I have to say there was no criminal solicitation? There was no illegal content or anything that can be construed as illegal content!!! You guys simply can't believe that the govt would want to shut down a website with no illegal content, can you?

My friend's response to Hero's request for a docket number is this:

Quote:
Though it started before this, the sentencing hearing transcript is
all he needs to read. MOST of it was about the feds making sure my web sites were disabled, and my video wasn't for sale. The case number is 2:05-CR-101-01, from the Eastern District of PA. (It should all be on the PACER system.) Neither the judge nor the persecutors made any secrets of their agenda to shut me up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I suspect criminal solicitation is not protected speech.
Good effing grief. How many times do I have to say there was no criminal solicitation? There was no illegal content or anything that can be construed as illegal content!!! You guys simply can't believe that the govt would want to shut down a website with no illegal content, can you?

Actually, no I can't and I'll tell you why, because if your friend's lawyers REALLY believed that was what was going on they would have a fantastic civil rights case, I mean one of the ones that can make someone's legal rep and potentially go all the way to SCOTUS.

So that leaves two possibilities.

1) Your friend represented himself, which would explain why he was cut some slack.

or

2) People with actual legal training determined that despite your friends layman's belief that his site was clean the prosecutor had stuff that could stick. It might not be what your friend believes, but belief and reality are not necessarily compatible but that is probably what was happening.

My friend's response to Hero's request for a docket number is this:
Quote:
Though it started before this, the sentencing hearing transcript is
all he needs to read. MOST of it was about the feds making sure my web sites were disabled, and my video wasn't for sale. The case number is 2:05-CR-101-01, from the Eastern District of PA. (It should all be on the PACER system.) Neither the judge nor the persecutors made any secrets of their agenda to shut me up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:41 PM

is this it?
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0642P.pdf

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D1432P.pdf

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0301P.pdf

For context

http://www.slate.com/id/2086425/

and the DOJ version

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/August/05_tax_418.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:57 AM

Back to the topic at hand...

While some efforts have been initiated, this is gonna take time, especially since I need *everyone* right now on another issue, Jack.

I'll offer suggestions and advice, as well as dropping a word to two to some folk, but at the moment the lids come off with a bang in TX and imma be busy as hell for a while on that, in hopes of averting the seemingly inevitable.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The free speech issue came in when the judge (I believe, though it could have been the prosecutor--I'll have to ask my friend who exactly) offered him a more lenient sentence for failure to file in exchange for shutting down his website and withdrawing the sale of his video. The authorities thus made it a free speech issue.

What case? What judge?

Didn't happen. Lie, ebellishment...whatever. What you say did not happen. No judge would do it, no judge would allow it as part of a deal.

The only similar situation I can think of is a person using a website to advise others on methods for tax evasion (kinda like what got Wesley Snipes). Thats illegal (for one thing it amounts to practicing law without a license). Often those kind of cases involve shutting down the websites.

Even by your own statement it is not a free speech issue. Assuming what you said was true and is whole story (and assuming the sky is not blue and the the Easter Bunny is responsible for rainbows and sunshine) it is STILL not a speech issue. He was free to speak and still keep his website...he CHOSE not to do so.

So, cite me the case number and court. Put up or shut up as they say. I call.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
What case? What judge?

Didn't happen. Lie, ebellishment...whatever. What you say did not happen. No judge would do it, no judge would allow it as part of a deal.

Ok, it seems its 05-101-01 in US Dist Court for the Eastern District of PA. Thanks for the help with finding more information.

Reading the links provided indicate that your friend operated a website and sold videos expounding on his tax resister opinions and tactics. While the former would be protected speech, the later is not (well, not always). His arguments were rejected by the Judge and the Jury. He also made the mistake of defending himself (probably cause no lawyer would argue the case the way he wanted it done).

The speech issue was never...the issue. He sold his program and never reported the income. That meant that the govenment NEVER had to argue the merits of the speech or the content of the site or videos because merely failing to report the income was sufficient to merit conviction. Thus shutting down the website was not about speech but about ceasing his criminal enterprise.

So, as you can see, the story was embellished in a light most favorable to the Defendant. I urge everyone caution when looking at stories like this. Self-serving lies about government abuse can be very dangerous. It demeans otherwise good and just work by the government when it acts properly in a difficult or controversal situation. It also distracts from legitimate acts of government abuse in the same manner as crying wolf.

Like 'no knock' warrants (finally managing to relate this to the original topic) there exists the potential for abuse or honost mistakes in any government action. The solution is training, equipment, transparency of process, oversite, and room to learn and adapt.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So, as you can see, the story was embellished in a light most favorable to the Defendant. I urge everyone caution when looking at stories like this. Self-serving lies about government abuse can be very dangerous. It demeans otherwise good and just work by the government when it acts properly in a difficult or controversal situation. It also distracts from legitimate acts of government abuse in the same manner as crying wolf.

Like 'no knock' warrants (finally managing to relate this to the original topic) there exists the potential for abuse or honost mistakes in any government action. The solution is training, equipment, transparency of process, oversite, and room to learn and adapt.

This is an excellent point, but one that will fall on def ears to the people that need to listen to it the most. Ironically the people who appear to be the most diligent against government abuse, are often the ones who are the most blind to it. When you see every cop as an abuser, you will never see the real abusers. When you see the system as “fascist,” you never know when the system works and when it doesn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What makes you hate the US so much that you are dead set on describing it with such negative fabrications?

In strawman alley again...

I love my country- what I hate is the bending and/or shredding of the Constitution to bring favour upon certain individuals and/or corporations. This bending/shredding is dangerous, as the end result of tossing out the Constitution as a whole (is that not the logical end of continuing to chip away at it??) is another fascist dictatorship. Yeah, we're decades & decades from that ever happening, if indeed it ever will (I think prolly not), but regardless, I RESENT every small step in that direction for the lives it ruins and/or ends in the process.

American Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The solution is training, equipment, transparency of process, oversite, and room to learn and adapt.
When you see every cop as an abuser, you will never see the real abusers. When you see the system as “fascist,” you never know when the system works and when it doesn't.

Both you guys are spot-on here, there can be the tendency to go too far to the edge with anything...
Everything in moderation, including moderation is my motto...

if I started having a mottoisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I love my country- what I hate is the bending and/or shredding of the Constitution to bring favour upon certain individuals and/or corporations. This bending/shredding is dangerous, as the end result of tossing out the Constitution as a whole (is that not the logical end of continuing to chip away at it??) is another fascist dictatorship. Yeah, we're decades & decades from that ever happening, if indeed it ever will (I think prolly not), but regardless, I RESENT every small step in that direction for the lives it ruins and/or ends in the process.

So, you’re solution is to give up. You’ve decided that since there’s a few cracks in the paint, we shouldn’t even bother - the whole things ruined. You know we probably see more eye-to-eye on these things then it appears, but I simply can't see over accusations like fascism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So, you’re solution is to give up.

Hell no. Scream- wake folks up, vote!!! Resist media manipulation & control. Keep flyin'.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Reading the links provided indicate that your friend operated a website and sold videos expounding on his tax resister opinions and tactics. While the former would be protected speech, the later is not (well, not always)...

The speech issue was never...the issue. He sold his program and never reported the income. That meant that the govenment NEVER had to argue the merits of the speech or the content of the site or videos because merely failing to report the income was sufficient to merit conviction. Thus shutting down the website was not about speech but about ceasing his criminal enterprise.

Ok, by your own admission, his website was protected speech. The website itself was not a criminal enterprise.

And I have thoroughly examined both the website and video. There are absolutely NO tactics involved, no tax resister advice, nothing that can be construed as solicitation to commit a crime. As a prosecutor, you should know that the onus of evidence of a crime is on the State. And there was no evidence presented demonstrating that his source of income was itself criminal.

The crime was failure to file. As you repeated pointed out in the past, the enterprise and failing to file taxes for the enterprise are two separate legal issues.

So when did the enterprise itself become criminal? Couldn't it have been sufficient to say, "OK, there is nothing wrong with your business, but you'll file and pay taxes from now on"?

To cease the criminal activity for which he was convicted, all he had to do was file and pay taxes. That was it. The source of the income was completely legal and neither here nor there.

It is you who is twisting the facts to defend an indefensible act of fascism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
is this it?
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0642P.pdf

Yes, this is the case. But none of them are the sentencing hearing transcripts.

Hero, would you be willing to do me a favor? I have not read the sentencing hearing transcripts myself. If you have an electronic copy, would you be willing to send a copy to me at canttakesky@att.net ? Thank you very much. I don't have access to PACER, obviously.

I want to keep the focus of this discussion on the free speech issue, that is the leniency of the sentencing granted in exchange for shutting down a perfectly legal website.

And yes, Fletch, he did represent himself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:24 AM