The following was posted by Norkakn, 6/4/2000 01:05AM, in the Ms.Magazine
Politics Forum. I quote the article with no comment at this time. http://www.msmagazine.com/index.html
(QUOTE)
Feel free to copy this article far and wide, but please keep my name and this
sentence on it.
The Bill of Rights, a Status Report by Eric Postpischil
4 September 1990
6 Hamlett Drive, Apt. 17
Nashua, NH 03062
edp@jareth.enet.dec.com
How many rights do you have? You should check, because it might not be as
many today as it was a few years ago, or even a few months ago. Some
people I talk to are not concerned that police will execute a search warrant
without knocking or that they set up roadblocks and stop and interrogate
innocent citizens. They do not regard these as great infringements on their
rights. But when you put current events together, there is information that
may be surprising to people who have not yet been concerned: The amount
of the Bill of Rights that is under attack is alarming.
Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and see which aspects are being pushed
on or threatened. The point here is not the degree of each attack or its
rightness or wrongness, but the sheer number of rights that are under attack.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
ESTABLISHING RELIGION: While campaigning for his first term, George Bush
said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots." Bush has not retracted, commented on, or
clarified this statement, in spite of requests to do so. According to Bush, this
is one nation under God. And apparently if you are not within Bush's religious
beliefs, you are not a citizen. Federal, state, and local governments also
promote a particular religion (or, occasionally, religions) by spending public
money on religious displays.
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: Robert Newmeyer and Glenn Braunstein were
jailed in 1988 for refusing to stand in respect for a judge. Braunstein says the
tradition of
rising in court started decades ago when judges entered carrying Bibles.
Since judges no longer carry Bibles, Braunstein says there is no reason to
stand -- and his
Bible tells him to honor no other God. For this religious practice, Newmeyer
and Braunstein were jailed and are now suing.
FREE SPEECH: We find that technology has given the government an excuse
to interfere with free speech. Claiming that radio frequencies are a limited
resource, the government tells broadcasters what to say (such as news and
public and local service programming) and what not to say (obscenity, as
defined by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]). The FCC is
investigating Boston PBS station WGBH-TV for broadcasting photographs
from the Mapplethorpe exhibit.
FREE SPEECH: There are also laws to limit political statements and
contributions to political activities. In 1985, the Michigan Chamber of
Commerce wanted to take out an advertisement supporting a candidate in
the state house of representatives. But a 1976 Michigan law prohibits a
corporation from using its general treasury funds to make independent
expenditures in a political campaign. In March, the Supreme Court upheld
that law. According to dissenting Justice Kennedy, it is now a felony in
Michigan for the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union, or the
Chamber of Commerce to advise the public how a candidate voted on issues
of urgent concern to their members.
FREE PRESS: As in speech, technology has provided another excuse for
government intrusion in the press. If you distribute a magazine electronically
and do not print copies, the government doesn't consider you a press and
does not give you the same protections courts have extended to printed
news. The equipment used to publish Phrack, a worldwide electronic
magazine about phones and hacking, was confiscated after publishing a
document copied from a Bell South computer entitled "A Bell South Standard
Practice (BSP) 660-225-104SV Control Office Administration of Enhanced 911
Services for Special Services and Major Account Centers, March, 1988." All of
the information in this document was publicly available from Bell South in
other documents. The government has not alleged that the publisher of
Phrack, Craig Neidorf, was involved with or participated in the copying of the
document. Also, the person who copied this document from telephone
company computers placed a copy on a bulletin board run by Rich Andrews.
Andrews forwarded a copy to AT&T officials and cooperated with authorities
fully. In return, the Secret Service (SS) confiscated Andrews' computer along
with all the mail and data that were on it. Andrews was not charged with any
crime.
FREE PRESS: In another incident that would be comical if it were not true, on
March 1 the SS ransacked the offices of Steve Jackson Games (SJG);
irreparably damaged property; and confiscated three computers, two laser
printers, several hard disks, and many boxes of paper and floppy disks. The
target of the SS operation was to seize all copies of a game of fiction called
GURPS Cyberpunk. The Cyberpunk game contains fictitious break-ins in a
futuristic world, with no technical information of actual use with real
computers, nor is it played on computers. The SS never filed any charges
against SJG but still refused to return confiscated property.
PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: The right to assemble peaceably is no longer free --
you have to get a permit. Even that is not enough; some officials have to be
sued before they realize their reasons for denying a permit are not
Constitutional.
PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: In Alexandria, Virginia, there is a law that prohibits
people from loitering for more than seven minutes and exchanging small
objects. Punishment is two years in jail. Consider the scene in jail: "What'd
you do?" "I was waiting at a bus stop and gave a guy a cigarette." This is not
an impossible occurrence: In Pittsburgh, Eugene Tyler, 15, has been ordered
away from bus stops by police officers. Sherman Jones, also 15, was accosted
with a police officer's hands around his neck after putting the last bit of pizza
crust into his mouth. The police suspected him of hiding drugs.
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES: Rounding out the attacks on the
first amendment, there is a sword hanging over the right to petition for
redress of grievances. House Resolution 4079, the National Drug and Crime
Emergency Act, tries to "modify" the right to habeas corpus. It sets time
limits on the right of people in custody to petition for redress and also limits
the courts in which such an appeal may be heard.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: This amendment is so commonly challenged that the
movement has its own name: gun control. Legislation banning various types
of weapons is supported with the claim that the weapons are not for
"legitimate" sporting purposes. This is a perversion of the right to bear arms
for two reasons. First, the basis of freedom is not that permission to do
legitimate things is granted to the people, but rather that the government is
empowered to do a limited number of legitimate things -- everything else
people are free to do; they do not need to justify their choices. Second,
should the need for defense arise, it will not be hordes of deer that the
security of a free state needs to be defended from. Defense would be needed
against humans, whether external invaders or internal oppressors. It is an
unfortunate fact of life that the guns that would be needed to defend the
security of a state are guns to attack people, not guns for sporting purposes.
Firearms regulations also empower local officials, such as police chiefs, to
grant or deny permits. This results in towns where only friends of people in
the right places are granted permits, or towns where women are generally
denied the right to carry a weapon for self-defense.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.
QUARTERING SOLDIERS: This amendment is fairly clean so far, but it is not
entirely safe. Recently, 200 troops in camouflage dress with M-16s and
helicopters swept through Kings Ridge National Forest in Humboldt County,
California. In the process of searching for marijuana plants for four days,
soldiers assaulted people on private land with M-16s and barred them from
their own property. This might not be a direct hit on the third amendment,
but the disregard for private property is uncomfortably close.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: The RICO law is
making a mockery of the right to be secure from seizure. Entire stores of
books or videotapes have been confiscated based upon the presence of some
sexually explicit items. Bars, restaurants, or houses are taken from the
owners because employees or tenants sold drugs. In Volusia County, Florida,
Sheriff Robert Vogel and his officers stop automobiles for contrived violations.
If large amounts of cash are found, the police confiscate it on the
PRESUMPTION that it is drug money -- even if there is no other evidence and
no charges are filed against the car's occupants. The victims can get their
money back only if they prove the money was obtained legally. One couple
got their money back by proving it was an insurance settlement. Two other
men who tried to get their two thousand dollars back were denied by the
Florida courts.
RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A new law goes into
effect in Oklahoma on January 1, 1991. All property, real and personal, is
taxable, and citizens are required to list all their personal property for tax
assessors, including household furniture, gold and silver plate, musical
instruments, watches, jewelry, and personal, private, or professional libraries.
If a citizen refuses to list their property or is suspected of not listing
something, the law directs the assessor to visit and enter the premises,
getting a search warrant if necessary. Being required to tell the state
everything you own is not being secure in one's home and effects.
NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY
OATH OR AFFIRMATION: As a supporting oath or affirmation, reports of
anonymous informants are accepted. This practice has been condoned by the
Supreme Court.
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND PERSONS OR
THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Today's warrants do not particularly describe the
things to be seized -- they list things that might be present. For example, if
police are making a drug raid, they will list weapons as things to be searched
for and seized. This is done not because the police know of any weapons and
can particularly describe them, but because they allege people with drugs
often have weapons.
Both of the above apply to the warrant the Hudson, New Hampshire, police
used when they broke down Bruce Lavoie's door at 5 a.m. with guns drawn
and shot and killed him. The warrant claimed information from an
anonymous informant, and it said, among other things, that guns were to be
seized. The mention of guns in the warrant was used as reason to enter with
guns drawn. Bruce Lavoie had no guns. Bruce Lavoie was not secure from
unreasonable search and seizure -- nor is anybody else.
Other infringements on the fourth amendment include roadblocks and the
Boston Police detention of people based on colors they are wearing
(supposedly indicating gang membership). And in Pittsburgh again, Eugene
Tyler was once searched because he was wearing sweat pants and a plaid
shirt -- police told him they heard many drug dealers at that time were
wearing sweat pants and plaid shirts.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in
time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject to the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation.
INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY: Kevin Bjornson has been proprietor of
Hydro-Tech for nearly a decade and is a leading authority on hydroponic
technology and cultivation. On October 26, 1989, both locations of
Hydro-Tech were raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration. National
Drug Control Policy Director William Bennett has declared that some indoor
lighting and hydroponic equipment is purchased by marijuana growers, so
retailers and wholesalers of such equipment are drug profiteers and
co-conspirators. Bjornson was not charged with any crime, nor subpoenaed,
issued a warrant, or arrested. No illegal substances were found on his
premises. Federal officials were unable to convince grand juries to indict
Bjornson.
By February, they had called scores of witnesses and recalled many two or
three times, but none of the grand juries they convened decided there was
reason to criminally prosecute Bjornson. In spite of that, as of March, his
bank accounts were still frozen and none of the inventories or records had
been returned. Grand juries refused to indict Bjornson, but the government is
still penalizing him.
TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB: Members of the McMartin family
in California have been tried two or three times for child abuse. Anthony
Barnaby was tried for murder (without evidence linking him to the crime)
three times before New Hampshire let him go.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Oliver North was forced to
testify against himself. Congress granted him immunity from having anything
he said to them being used as evidence against him, and then they required
him to talk. After he did so, what he said was used to find other evidence
which was used against him. The courts also play games where you can be
required to testify against yourself if you testify at all.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: In the New York Central
Park assault case, three people were found guilty of assault. But there was no
physical evidence linking them to the crime; semen did not match any of the
defendants. The only evidence the state had was confessions. To obtain these
confessions, the police questioned a 15-year old without a parent present --
which is illegal under New York state law. Police also refused to let the
subject's Big Brother, an attorney for the Federal government, see him during
questioning. Police screamed "You better tell us what we want to hear and
cooperate or you are going to jail," at 14-year-old Antron McCray, according
to Bobby McCray, his father. Antron
McCray "confessed" after his father told him to, so that police would release
him. These people were coerced into bearing witness against themselves, and
those confessions were used to convict them.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Your answers to Census
questions are required by law, with a $100 penalty for each question not
answered. But people have been evicted for giving honest Census answers.
According to the
General Accounting Office, one of the most frequent ways city governments
use census information is to detect illegal two-family dwellings. This has
happened in
Montgomery County, Maryland; Pullman, Washington; and Long Island, New
York. The August 8, 1989, Wall Street Journal reports this and other ways
Census answers have been used against the answerers.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Drug tests are being
required from more and more people, even when there is no probable cause,
no accident, and no suspicion of drug use. Requiring people to take drug tests
compels them to
provide evidence against themselves.
DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW: This clause is violated on each of the items life, liberty, and property.
Incidents including such violations are described elsewhere in this article.
Here are two more: On March 26, 1987, in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, Jeffrey
Miles was killed by police officer John Rucker, who was looking for a
suspected drug dealer. Rucker had been sent to the wrong house; Miles was
not wanted by police. He received no due process. In Detroit, $4,834 was
seized from a grocery store after dogs detected traces of cocaine on three
one-dollar bills in a cash register.
PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION: RICO is shredding this aspect of the Bill of Rights. The
money confiscated by Sheriff Vogel goes directly into Vogel's budget; it is not
regulated by the legislature. Federal and local governments seize and auction
boats, buildings, and other property. Under RICO, the government is seizing
property without due process. The victims are required to prove not only that
they are not guilty of a crime, but that they are entitled to their property.
Otherwise, the government auctions off the property and keeps the proceeds.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defence.
THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Surprisingly, the right to a
public trial is under attack. When Marion Barry was being tried, the
prosecution attempted to bar Louis Farrakhan and George Stallings from the
gallery. This request was based on an allegation that they would send silent
and "impermissible messages" to the jurors. The judge initially granted this
request. One might argue that the whole point of a public trial is to send a
message to all the participants: The message is that the public is watching;
the trial had better be fair.
BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY: The government does not even honor the right to
trial by an impartial jury. US District Judge Edward Rafeedie is investigating
improper influence on jurors by US marshals in the Enrique Camarena case.
US marshals apparently illegally communicated with jurors during
deliberations.
OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED: This is incredible, but Manuel Noriega is being tried so far away
from the place where he is alleged to have committed crimes that the United
States had to invade another country and overturn a government to get him.
Nor is this a unique occurrence; in a matter separate from the Camarena
case, Judge Rafeedie was asked to dismiss charges against Mexican
gynecologist Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain on the grounds that the doctor
was illegally abducted from his Guadalajara office in April and turned over to
US authorities.
TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION: Steve
Jackson Games, nearly put out of business by the raid described previously,
has been stonewalled by the SS. "For the past month or so these guys have
been insisting the book wasn't the target of the raid, but they don't say what
the target was, or why they were critical of the book, or why they won't give
it back," Steve Jackson says. "They have repeatedly denied we're targets but
don't explain why we've been made victims." Attorneys for SJG tried to find
out the basis for the search warrant that led to the raid on SJG. But the
application for that warrant was sealed by order of the court and remained
sealed at last report, in July. Not only has the SS taken property and nearly
destroyed a publisher, it will not even explain the nature and cause of the
accusations that led to the raid.
TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM: The courts are
beginning to play fast and loose with the right to confront witnesses. Watch
out for anonymous witnesses and videotaped testimony.
TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES: Ronald
Reagan resisted submitting to subpoena and answering questions about
Irangate, claiming matters of national security and executive privilege. A
judge had to dismiss some charges against Irangate participants because the
government refused to provide information subpoenaed by the defendants.
And one wonders if the government would go to the same lengths to obtain
witnesses for Manuel Noriega as it did to capture him.
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: The right to assistance of counsel
took a hit recently. Connecticut Judge Joseph Sylvester is refusing to assign
public defenders to people ACCUSED of drug-related crimes, including drunk
driving.
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: RICO is also affecting the right to
have the assistance of counsel. The government confiscates the money of an
accused person,which leaves them unable to hire attorneys. The IRS has
served summonses nationwide to defense attorneys, demanding the names of
clients who paid cash for fees exceeding $10,000.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of common law.
RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW: This is a simple right;
so far the government has not felt threatened by it and has not made attacks
on it that I am aware of. This is our only remaining safe haven in the Bill of
Rights.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
EXCESSIVE BAIL AND FINES: Tallahatchie County in Mississippi charges ten
dollars a day to each person who spends time in the jail, regardless of the
length of stay
or the outcome of their trial. This means innocent people are forced to pay.
Marvin Willis was stuck in jail for 90 days trying to raise $2,500 bail on an
assault charge. But after he made that bail, he was kept imprisoned because
he could not pay the $900 rent Tallahatchie demanded. Nine former inmates
are suing the county for this practice.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: House Resolution 4079 sticks its nose
in here too: "... a Federal court shall not hold prison or jail crowding
unconstitutional under the eighth amendment except to the extent that an
individual plaintiff inmate proves that the crowding causes the infliction of
cruel and unusual punishment of that inmate."
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: A life sentence for selling a quarter of
a gram of cocaine for $20 -- that is what Ricky Isom was sentenced to in
February in Cobb County, Georgia. It was Isom's second conviction in two
years, and state law imposes a mandatory sentence. Even the judge
pronouncing the sentence thinks it is cruel; Judge Tom Cauthorn expressed
grave reservations before sentencing
Isom and Douglas Rucks (convicted of selling 3.5 grams of cocaine in a
separate but similar case). Judge Cauthorn called the sentences "Draconian."
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
OTHER RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE: This amendment is so weak
today that I will ask not what infringements there are on it but rather what
exercise of it exists at all? What law can you appeal to a court to find you not
guilty of violating because the law denies a right retained by you?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE: This amendment is
also weak, although it is not so nonexistent as the ninth amendment. But few
states set their own speed limits or drinking age limits. Today, we mostly
think of this country as the -- singular -- United States, rather than a
collection of states. This concentration of powerdetaches laws from the
desires of people -- and even of
states. House Resolution 4079 crops up again here -- it uses financial
incentives to get states to set specific penalties for certain crimes. Making
their own laws
certainly must be considered a right of the states, and this right is being
infringed upon.
Out of ten amendments, nine are under attack, most of them under multiple
attacks of different natures, and some of them under a barrage. If this much
of the Bill of Rights is threatened, how can you be sure your rights are safe?
A right has to be there when you need it. Like insurance, you cannot afford to
wait until you need it and then set about procuring it or ensuring it is
available. Assurance must be made in advance.
The bottom line here is that your rights are not safe. You do not know when
one of your rights will be violated. A number of rights protect accused
persons, and you may think it is not important to protect the rights of
criminals. But if a right is not there for people accused of crimes, it will not
be there when you need it. With the Bill of Rights in the sad condition
described above, nobody can be confident they will be able to exercise the
rights to which they are justly entitled. To preserve our rights for ourselves in
the future, we must defend them for everybody today.
(UNQUOTE)
Again, I offer this with no confirmation or comment at this time.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 04, 2000).]
Politics Forum. I quote the article with no comment at this time. http://www.msmagazine.com/index.html
(QUOTE)
Feel free to copy this article far and wide, but please keep my name and this
sentence on it.
The Bill of Rights, a Status Report by Eric Postpischil
4 September 1990
6 Hamlett Drive, Apt. 17
Nashua, NH 03062
edp@jareth.enet.dec.com
How many rights do you have? You should check, because it might not be as
many today as it was a few years ago, or even a few months ago. Some
people I talk to are not concerned that police will execute a search warrant
without knocking or that they set up roadblocks and stop and interrogate
innocent citizens. They do not regard these as great infringements on their
rights. But when you put current events together, there is information that
may be surprising to people who have not yet been concerned: The amount
of the Bill of Rights that is under attack is alarming.
Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and see which aspects are being pushed
on or threatened. The point here is not the degree of each attack or its
rightness or wrongness, but the sheer number of rights that are under attack.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
ESTABLISHING RELIGION: While campaigning for his first term, George Bush
said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots." Bush has not retracted, commented on, or
clarified this statement, in spite of requests to do so. According to Bush, this
is one nation under God. And apparently if you are not within Bush's religious
beliefs, you are not a citizen. Federal, state, and local governments also
promote a particular religion (or, occasionally, religions) by spending public
money on religious displays.
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: Robert Newmeyer and Glenn Braunstein were
jailed in 1988 for refusing to stand in respect for a judge. Braunstein says the
tradition of
rising in court started decades ago when judges entered carrying Bibles.
Since judges no longer carry Bibles, Braunstein says there is no reason to
stand -- and his
Bible tells him to honor no other God. For this religious practice, Newmeyer
and Braunstein were jailed and are now suing.
FREE SPEECH: We find that technology has given the government an excuse
to interfere with free speech. Claiming that radio frequencies are a limited
resource, the government tells broadcasters what to say (such as news and
public and local service programming) and what not to say (obscenity, as
defined by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]). The FCC is
investigating Boston PBS station WGBH-TV for broadcasting photographs
from the Mapplethorpe exhibit.
FREE SPEECH: There are also laws to limit political statements and
contributions to political activities. In 1985, the Michigan Chamber of
Commerce wanted to take out an advertisement supporting a candidate in
the state house of representatives. But a 1976 Michigan law prohibits a
corporation from using its general treasury funds to make independent
expenditures in a political campaign. In March, the Supreme Court upheld
that law. According to dissenting Justice Kennedy, it is now a felony in
Michigan for the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union, or the
Chamber of Commerce to advise the public how a candidate voted on issues
of urgent concern to their members.
FREE PRESS: As in speech, technology has provided another excuse for
government intrusion in the press. If you distribute a magazine electronically
and do not print copies, the government doesn't consider you a press and
does not give you the same protections courts have extended to printed
news. The equipment used to publish Phrack, a worldwide electronic
magazine about phones and hacking, was confiscated after publishing a
document copied from a Bell South computer entitled "A Bell South Standard
Practice (BSP) 660-225-104SV Control Office Administration of Enhanced 911
Services for Special Services and Major Account Centers, March, 1988." All of
the information in this document was publicly available from Bell South in
other documents. The government has not alleged that the publisher of
Phrack, Craig Neidorf, was involved with or participated in the copying of the
document. Also, the person who copied this document from telephone
company computers placed a copy on a bulletin board run by Rich Andrews.
Andrews forwarded a copy to AT&T officials and cooperated with authorities
fully. In return, the Secret Service (SS) confiscated Andrews' computer along
with all the mail and data that were on it. Andrews was not charged with any
crime.
FREE PRESS: In another incident that would be comical if it were not true, on
March 1 the SS ransacked the offices of Steve Jackson Games (SJG);
irreparably damaged property; and confiscated three computers, two laser
printers, several hard disks, and many boxes of paper and floppy disks. The
target of the SS operation was to seize all copies of a game of fiction called
GURPS Cyberpunk. The Cyberpunk game contains fictitious break-ins in a
futuristic world, with no technical information of actual use with real
computers, nor is it played on computers. The SS never filed any charges
against SJG but still refused to return confiscated property.
PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: The right to assemble peaceably is no longer free --
you have to get a permit. Even that is not enough; some officials have to be
sued before they realize their reasons for denying a permit are not
Constitutional.
PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY: In Alexandria, Virginia, there is a law that prohibits
people from loitering for more than seven minutes and exchanging small
objects. Punishment is two years in jail. Consider the scene in jail: "What'd
you do?" "I was waiting at a bus stop and gave a guy a cigarette." This is not
an impossible occurrence: In Pittsburgh, Eugene Tyler, 15, has been ordered
away from bus stops by police officers. Sherman Jones, also 15, was accosted
with a police officer's hands around his neck after putting the last bit of pizza
crust into his mouth. The police suspected him of hiding drugs.
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES: Rounding out the attacks on the
first amendment, there is a sword hanging over the right to petition for
redress of grievances. House Resolution 4079, the National Drug and Crime
Emergency Act, tries to "modify" the right to habeas corpus. It sets time
limits on the right of people in custody to petition for redress and also limits
the courts in which such an appeal may be heard.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: This amendment is so commonly challenged that the
movement has its own name: gun control. Legislation banning various types
of weapons is supported with the claim that the weapons are not for
"legitimate" sporting purposes. This is a perversion of the right to bear arms
for two reasons. First, the basis of freedom is not that permission to do
legitimate things is granted to the people, but rather that the government is
empowered to do a limited number of legitimate things -- everything else
people are free to do; they do not need to justify their choices. Second,
should the need for defense arise, it will not be hordes of deer that the
security of a free state needs to be defended from. Defense would be needed
against humans, whether external invaders or internal oppressors. It is an
unfortunate fact of life that the guns that would be needed to defend the
security of a state are guns to attack people, not guns for sporting purposes.
Firearms regulations also empower local officials, such as police chiefs, to
grant or deny permits. This results in towns where only friends of people in
the right places are granted permits, or towns where women are generally
denied the right to carry a weapon for self-defense.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.
QUARTERING SOLDIERS: This amendment is fairly clean so far, but it is not
entirely safe. Recently, 200 troops in camouflage dress with M-16s and
helicopters swept through Kings Ridge National Forest in Humboldt County,
California. In the process of searching for marijuana plants for four days,
soldiers assaulted people on private land with M-16s and barred them from
their own property. This might not be a direct hit on the third amendment,
but the disregard for private property is uncomfortably close.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: The RICO law is
making a mockery of the right to be secure from seizure. Entire stores of
books or videotapes have been confiscated based upon the presence of some
sexually explicit items. Bars, restaurants, or houses are taken from the
owners because employees or tenants sold drugs. In Volusia County, Florida,
Sheriff Robert Vogel and his officers stop automobiles for contrived violations.
If large amounts of cash are found, the police confiscate it on the
PRESUMPTION that it is drug money -- even if there is no other evidence and
no charges are filed against the car's occupants. The victims can get their
money back only if they prove the money was obtained legally. One couple
got their money back by proving it was an insurance settlement. Two other
men who tried to get their two thousand dollars back were denied by the
Florida courts.
RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: A new law goes into
effect in Oklahoma on January 1, 1991. All property, real and personal, is
taxable, and citizens are required to list all their personal property for tax
assessors, including household furniture, gold and silver plate, musical
instruments, watches, jewelry, and personal, private, or professional libraries.
If a citizen refuses to list their property or is suspected of not listing
something, the law directs the assessor to visit and enter the premises,
getting a search warrant if necessary. Being required to tell the state
everything you own is not being secure in one's home and effects.
NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY
OATH OR AFFIRMATION: As a supporting oath or affirmation, reports of
anonymous informants are accepted. This practice has been condoned by the
Supreme Court.
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND PERSONS OR
THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Today's warrants do not particularly describe the
things to be seized -- they list things that might be present. For example, if
police are making a drug raid, they will list weapons as things to be searched
for and seized. This is done not because the police know of any weapons and
can particularly describe them, but because they allege people with drugs
often have weapons.
Both of the above apply to the warrant the Hudson, New Hampshire, police
used when they broke down Bruce Lavoie's door at 5 a.m. with guns drawn
and shot and killed him. The warrant claimed information from an
anonymous informant, and it said, among other things, that guns were to be
seized. The mention of guns in the warrant was used as reason to enter with
guns drawn. Bruce Lavoie had no guns. Bruce Lavoie was not secure from
unreasonable search and seizure -- nor is anybody else.
Other infringements on the fourth amendment include roadblocks and the
Boston Police detention of people based on colors they are wearing
(supposedly indicating gang membership). And in Pittsburgh again, Eugene
Tyler was once searched because he was wearing sweat pants and a plaid
shirt -- police told him they heard many drug dealers at that time were
wearing sweat pants and plaid shirts.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in
time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject to the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation.
INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY: Kevin Bjornson has been proprietor of
Hydro-Tech for nearly a decade and is a leading authority on hydroponic
technology and cultivation. On October 26, 1989, both locations of
Hydro-Tech were raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration. National
Drug Control Policy Director William Bennett has declared that some indoor
lighting and hydroponic equipment is purchased by marijuana growers, so
retailers and wholesalers of such equipment are drug profiteers and
co-conspirators. Bjornson was not charged with any crime, nor subpoenaed,
issued a warrant, or arrested. No illegal substances were found on his
premises. Federal officials were unable to convince grand juries to indict
Bjornson.
By February, they had called scores of witnesses and recalled many two or
three times, but none of the grand juries they convened decided there was
reason to criminally prosecute Bjornson. In spite of that, as of March, his
bank accounts were still frozen and none of the inventories or records had
been returned. Grand juries refused to indict Bjornson, but the government is
still penalizing him.
TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB: Members of the McMartin family
in California have been tried two or three times for child abuse. Anthony
Barnaby was tried for murder (without evidence linking him to the crime)
three times before New Hampshire let him go.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Oliver North was forced to
testify against himself. Congress granted him immunity from having anything
he said to them being used as evidence against him, and then they required
him to talk. After he did so, what he said was used to find other evidence
which was used against him. The courts also play games where you can be
required to testify against yourself if you testify at all.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: In the New York Central
Park assault case, three people were found guilty of assault. But there was no
physical evidence linking them to the crime; semen did not match any of the
defendants. The only evidence the state had was confessions. To obtain these
confessions, the police questioned a 15-year old without a parent present --
which is illegal under New York state law. Police also refused to let the
subject's Big Brother, an attorney for the Federal government, see him during
questioning. Police screamed "You better tell us what we want to hear and
cooperate or you are going to jail," at 14-year-old Antron McCray, according
to Bobby McCray, his father. Antron
McCray "confessed" after his father told him to, so that police would release
him. These people were coerced into bearing witness against themselves, and
those confessions were used to convict them.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Your answers to Census
questions are required by law, with a $100 penalty for each question not
answered. But people have been evicted for giving honest Census answers.
According to the
General Accounting Office, one of the most frequent ways city governments
use census information is to detect illegal two-family dwellings. This has
happened in
Montgomery County, Maryland; Pullman, Washington; and Long Island, New
York. The August 8, 1989, Wall Street Journal reports this and other ways
Census answers have been used against the answerers.
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF: Drug tests are being
required from more and more people, even when there is no probable cause,
no accident, and no suspicion of drug use. Requiring people to take drug tests
compels them to
provide evidence against themselves.
DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW: This clause is violated on each of the items life, liberty, and property.
Incidents including such violations are described elsewhere in this article.
Here are two more: On March 26, 1987, in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, Jeffrey
Miles was killed by police officer John Rucker, who was looking for a
suspected drug dealer. Rucker had been sent to the wrong house; Miles was
not wanted by police. He received no due process. In Detroit, $4,834 was
seized from a grocery store after dogs detected traces of cocaine on three
one-dollar bills in a cash register.
PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION: RICO is shredding this aspect of the Bill of Rights. The
money confiscated by Sheriff Vogel goes directly into Vogel's budget; it is not
regulated by the legislature. Federal and local governments seize and auction
boats, buildings, and other property. Under RICO, the government is seizing
property without due process. The victims are required to prove not only that
they are not guilty of a crime, but that they are entitled to their property.
Otherwise, the government auctions off the property and keeps the proceeds.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defence.
THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Surprisingly, the right to a
public trial is under attack. When Marion Barry was being tried, the
prosecution attempted to bar Louis Farrakhan and George Stallings from the
gallery. This request was based on an allegation that they would send silent
and "impermissible messages" to the jurors. The judge initially granted this
request. One might argue that the whole point of a public trial is to send a
message to all the participants: The message is that the public is watching;
the trial had better be fair.
BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY: The government does not even honor the right to
trial by an impartial jury. US District Judge Edward Rafeedie is investigating
improper influence on jurors by US marshals in the Enrique Camarena case.
US marshals apparently illegally communicated with jurors during
deliberations.
OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED: This is incredible, but Manuel Noriega is being tried so far away
from the place where he is alleged to have committed crimes that the United
States had to invade another country and overturn a government to get him.
Nor is this a unique occurrence; in a matter separate from the Camarena
case, Judge Rafeedie was asked to dismiss charges against Mexican
gynecologist Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain on the grounds that the doctor
was illegally abducted from his Guadalajara office in April and turned over to
US authorities.
TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION: Steve
Jackson Games, nearly put out of business by the raid described previously,
has been stonewalled by the SS. "For the past month or so these guys have
been insisting the book wasn't the target of the raid, but they don't say what
the target was, or why they were critical of the book, or why they won't give
it back," Steve Jackson says. "They have repeatedly denied we're targets but
don't explain why we've been made victims." Attorneys for SJG tried to find
out the basis for the search warrant that led to the raid on SJG. But the
application for that warrant was sealed by order of the court and remained
sealed at last report, in July. Not only has the SS taken property and nearly
destroyed a publisher, it will not even explain the nature and cause of the
accusations that led to the raid.
TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM: The courts are
beginning to play fast and loose with the right to confront witnesses. Watch
out for anonymous witnesses and videotaped testimony.
TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES: Ronald
Reagan resisted submitting to subpoena and answering questions about
Irangate, claiming matters of national security and executive privilege. A
judge had to dismiss some charges against Irangate participants because the
government refused to provide information subpoenaed by the defendants.
And one wonders if the government would go to the same lengths to obtain
witnesses for Manuel Noriega as it did to capture him.
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: The right to assistance of counsel
took a hit recently. Connecticut Judge Joseph Sylvester is refusing to assign
public defenders to people ACCUSED of drug-related crimes, including drunk
driving.
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: RICO is also affecting the right to
have the assistance of counsel. The government confiscates the money of an
accused person,which leaves them unable to hire attorneys. The IRS has
served summonses nationwide to defense attorneys, demanding the names of
clients who paid cash for fees exceeding $10,000.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of common law.
RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW: This is a simple right;
so far the government has not felt threatened by it and has not made attacks
on it that I am aware of. This is our only remaining safe haven in the Bill of
Rights.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
EXCESSIVE BAIL AND FINES: Tallahatchie County in Mississippi charges ten
dollars a day to each person who spends time in the jail, regardless of the
length of stay
or the outcome of their trial. This means innocent people are forced to pay.
Marvin Willis was stuck in jail for 90 days trying to raise $2,500 bail on an
assault charge. But after he made that bail, he was kept imprisoned because
he could not pay the $900 rent Tallahatchie demanded. Nine former inmates
are suing the county for this practice.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: House Resolution 4079 sticks its nose
in here too: "... a Federal court shall not hold prison or jail crowding
unconstitutional under the eighth amendment except to the extent that an
individual plaintiff inmate proves that the crowding causes the infliction of
cruel and unusual punishment of that inmate."
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: A life sentence for selling a quarter of
a gram of cocaine for $20 -- that is what Ricky Isom was sentenced to in
February in Cobb County, Georgia. It was Isom's second conviction in two
years, and state law imposes a mandatory sentence. Even the judge
pronouncing the sentence thinks it is cruel; Judge Tom Cauthorn expressed
grave reservations before sentencing
Isom and Douglas Rucks (convicted of selling 3.5 grams of cocaine in a
separate but similar case). Judge Cauthorn called the sentences "Draconian."
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
OTHER RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE: This amendment is so weak
today that I will ask not what infringements there are on it but rather what
exercise of it exists at all? What law can you appeal to a court to find you not
guilty of violating because the law denies a right retained by you?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE: This amendment is
also weak, although it is not so nonexistent as the ninth amendment. But few
states set their own speed limits or drinking age limits. Today, we mostly
think of this country as the -- singular -- United States, rather than a
collection of states. This concentration of powerdetaches laws from the
desires of people -- and even of
states. House Resolution 4079 crops up again here -- it uses financial
incentives to get states to set specific penalties for certain crimes. Making
their own laws
certainly must be considered a right of the states, and this right is being
infringed upon.
Out of ten amendments, nine are under attack, most of them under multiple
attacks of different natures, and some of them under a barrage. If this much
of the Bill of Rights is threatened, how can you be sure your rights are safe?
A right has to be there when you need it. Like insurance, you cannot afford to
wait until you need it and then set about procuring it or ensuring it is
available. Assurance must be made in advance.
The bottom line here is that your rights are not safe. You do not know when
one of your rights will be violated. A number of rights protect accused
persons, and you may think it is not important to protect the rights of
criminals. But if a right is not there for people accused of crimes, it will not
be there when you need it. With the Bill of Rights in the sad condition
described above, nobody can be confident they will be able to exercise the
rights to which they are justly entitled. To preserve our rights for ourselves in
the future, we must defend them for everybody today.
(UNQUOTE)
Again, I offer this with no confirmation or comment at this time.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 04, 2000).]