Judges

Changeling

Changeling

My family and I recently watched the moving “Changeling” with Angelina Jolie. The movie itself was entertaining and focused on the efforts of a 1920’s woman to recover her missing son. The issue at hand was the corruption of the Los Angeles Police Department after receiving bad press and their attempts to cover up shoddy police work. As we watched I found myself angered over the blatant misuse of authority. For example, when Jolie’s character challenged the police department they had her committed to an LA psychological hospital; a warrantless incarceration without trial. Once behind the walls of the hospital it was nearly impossible for her to plead her case.

Watching the movie caused me to challenge my kids to compare the situation to events of today and instantly they commented on perception of law enforcement corruption and intimidation. Of course, the most obvious example is TSA’s violation of the 4th Amendment at airport security check points and intimidation of people like Aaron Toney who was detained for 90 minutes, without arrest, by TSA on December 31 at Richmond, Virginia’s airport when he removed his shirt and displayed the 4th Amendment on his chest.

In Philadelphia gun owner Mark Fiornio was nearly shot, detained and harassed for lawfully openly carrying a gun. A new FBI Advisory circular, “Communities Against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Military Surplus Stores” advises store owners to keep records of customers making lawful purchases but fitting a profile of self-preparedness.

In London two weeks ago government officials required Amazon.com to stop selling self-defense weapons while authorities simultaneously allowed riots to “run their course.” Thus, the citizens lost the right to protect themselves in their own homes. Similarly, San Francisco authorities shut down cell-towers within the Bart system to prevent a possible riot from developing, but also leaving law abiding citizens with no mechanism for protection.

Regardless of examples I provide I must wonder when intimidation will stop and the rule of law will prevail. The movie “Changeling” highlighted corruption I could not believe existed. Ultimately, the 1930’s Courts found in favor of their “own”, but yet the corruption was known and documented. Like the Gestapo, TSA, police departments, and the National Guard will be asked to turn on citizens instead of protecting those, they are here “To Serve and Protect.”

Gestapo and Gulags

Gestapo and Gulags

Congress successfully reauthorized the Patriot Act on May 27th, 2011 with hours remaining before the Act would expire. America is eerily following the same path Hitler’s Nazi Germany took in the early 1930’s; a path of Federal law enforcement, diminished civil rights, and lack of transparency in the courts. The Gestapo was given the authority to investigate treason, espionage, sabotage and criminal attacks against Germany. The basic law passed in 1936 gave the Gestapo the right to operate without judicial oversight. The Gestapo could not be sued by citizens in Administrative court.

Americans are subjecting themselves to our own Gestapo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) willfully. Examples abound from TSA searches, disrobement, and groping at airports, rail stations, and even high school proms to document and papers required to open a bank account or get a job. Openly over the last 18 years there has been a push from local community law enforcement to a federally dominated model of control. Any local assertion of state’s power is met with federal resistance, like the Arizona and Georgia immigration lawsuits or economic threats to Texas over passing an anti-groping bill. DHS has pushed a “see something, say something” campaign to encourage spying on neighbors and standing up to Big Brother is now cause for consideration as “domestic terrorist.” It was that “domestic terrorism” that brought us freedom and the genesis of our country.

As police power expands, and 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights are reduced more citizens are being jailed than ever before. The term “Gulag” was originally an acronym for the Soviet agency administering the prisons, but has since come to represent any penal system. America has sharply turned her view on incarceration from on of rehabilitation to mandate. In 1982 approximately 1 of 77 Americans was under “correctional-control”, today that number is 1 of 31. Georgia leads the country with 1 of 13 adults under some type of judicial supervision. Take into account wage garnishment orders, child support orders, and foreclosure liens and judicial findings and the number is higher. Today the United States has the highest incarceration rate (3.1%) and the largest prison population of any country in the world. Even communist China with three times the population incarcerates fewer people.

The trend I see developing is one of government control creating fear among the citizens. I challenge you, what consequences would you face if you question how TSA handles you? What would you expect to happen if you say “no” to a police officer regarding a roadside search? Why are our countryman arrested for filming police stops? Why do victimless crimes, like drug use or possession, result in incarceration? More frequently the noose is tightening around our necks, “We the People..”

Little Noticed News

Little Noticed News (6/1/2011)
Oprah, Republican presidential candidate implosions, and Obama’s Irish roots seem to dominate the news. On a national and international level none of these newsworthy events will impact most Americans. Instead, I argue there is an entire underlying level of news taking place nationwide, some of which gets a brief mention on one of the cable or broadcast networks, but most of the news disappears not to be heard from again. America is changing, and changing rapidly. Willfully civil rights and constitutional guarantees are being eroded, and yet a blind eye is turned. Below I have listed examples from the last three weeks.
On May 22, 2011 – a Santa Fe, NM high school announced TSA would pat-down students as part of security to enter Prom. From TSA’s own web site, the agency’s mission is, “The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.” Nowhere is a high school or sports event mentioned, and I cannot imagine being groped on my last night in high school.
May 21, 2011 – Mark Fiornio strolled through downtown Philadelphia lawfully, openly, carrying his permitted gun. The issue at hand is Mr. Fiornio was detained, nearly shot, and charges brought against him for disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He tried to explain to police offers he had a permit and cited the statutory laws allowing him to open carry. Local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be “inconvenienced” if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.
May 15, 2011 – The Indiana Supreme Court, 3-2, ruled people have no right to resist officers who enter their homes under the premise it is in the greater public good and would minimize confrontation. Additionally, the Indiana Court ruled police do not need to knock to serve a search warrant.
May 17, 2011 – Historically police offers required probable cause and a search warrant before breaking into a home. That changed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kentucky v. King. Ruling 8-1 the justices gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, fearing the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In each of the above cases I can easily see the argument for “greater good”, “public safety” and other pansy excuses. Sadly, “we the people” are continuing to allow our freedoms to incrementally erode away. In one week, four cases that have far reaching circumstances. As a reminder, blood was shed for The Fourth Amendment, which assures that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,”

Tort Reform

Tort Reform

A discussion about nationalized healthcare cannot take place without mentioning tort reform. In essence, the thought is ‘reducing litigation or damages’ will reduce costs to healthcare. Of course, we could assume that would translate to all industries. Everyone remembers the lawsuit against McDonalds for serving hot coffee, spilled by the consumer. The initial amount of damages awarded was almost $3 million… and was eventually settled out-of-court for $600,000.

Similarly, businesses face threats of lawsuits daily from falls in parking lots or stores, misuse of products, or frivolous acts. A rampant industry of “legal theft” has been created by the television and billboard lawyers fishing for clients who may have an ailment never before considered, but with marketing and awareness suddenly thousands can suffer from imaginary problems, become part of a class lawsuit, and make money. The real winner is the law firm making millions in fees and taking a significant portion of the award.

Movies like “Erin Brokovich” and the many John Grisham novels/films have reminded us of the sympathetic need for our ability to litigate. In these blockbuster films the destitute win against the big, bad corporation and remind us they are evil and must be punished. In other parts of the world citizens cannot sue for millions and must bear the cost of legal fees when initiating a lawsuit and the defendant’s costs – should they lose. Neither method is perfect and creates unintended consequences. Americans appear frivolous and greedy in seeking justice and other countries appear to favor the big company over the individual.

Unfortunately we all face other consequences of our system. Imagine driving your car down Flagler Avenue and having a bicycle run into you. Several weeks later you may find a television lawyer serving you with a lawsuit. Regardless of fault, your insurance company will pay, not even argue the case, as the lawyer pursues an endless income stream from legal extortion. Similarly, a professional license is jeopardized by frivolous complaints and legal fees; to defend proper decisions can cost tens of thousands. Imagine the numbers professionals in the financial industry accused of “losing money” during the collapse of 2008-2009. Of course, the likes of Bernie Madoff permanently tarnished the reputation of those exercising due diligence.

Regardless of fault, a system of arbitration to bypass the expense of discovery should be established, especially on an individual basis. Principles costs money and often settlement to find personal peace through dismissal is a better option, but a feeling of admission of guilt is created when no guilt is present. “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson

Free Speech

Free Speech

I argue the most important freedom we have under the Constitution is the right to Freedom of Speech. It is interpreted as the right to speak freely without censorship or limitation. As defined in our own First Amendment to the Constitution, “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.”

Sadly though, something happened over the last century, accelerating rapidly over the last two decades. I previously wrote freedom of speech must remain free of tests, and the most important speech is one making us uncomfortable, but yet allowed. It is free speech protecting news media, web sites, and our access to information. We take for granted the freedom of the Internet and our assumed rights to read, review, and see any content. Of course, we are aware countries like China and North Korea censor their citizens’ access to web sites and news, especially political discourse contradicting their governments. We assume this will not happen in America, but quite the opposite is true.

Last week Senator Lieberman proudly announced his success pressuring Amazon.com to remove Wikileaks from its servers. Bill O’Reilly called for the execution of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange on his television show and Sarah Palin similarly did the same. The narrow-mindedness of these pundits is more concerning than the actions of Assange. Our willingness to have “hate speech” protections in America caused a young man in Kentucky to find himself sentenced to prison for three years last week after writing a poem titled, “The Sniper,” a concerning poem narrating the assassination of President Obama, but one that should be protected by the First Amendment nonetheless.

Many would argue some speech is bad, but I assert you must accept all speech to truly enjoy freedom of speech. The writings of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson granted our liberties and released us from tyranny. Using today’s standards their writings are treasonous and require “balance” and an investigation by Homeland Security would ensue with both men finding themselves on Domestic Terrorist watch lists; there would be no American Revolution. No matter how uncomfortable, the right to criticize and question our government leaders gave us our freedoms and we must continue to monitor and fight to keep this right to free speech. “Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime,” Potter Stewart

Burn Qurans

Burn Qurans

I am disappointed this afternoon, Thursday the 9th of September, after reading reports that Pastor Terry Jones has announced his church will not burn the Quran on Saturday, September 11th, the ninth anniversary of the day America was attacked by Muslim extremists. Last week I wrote in support of the project in New York, building a mosque at Ground Zero. Constitutionally the right to build the Mosque is guaranteed; however distasteful. Similarly, Pastor Jones’ right to burn the Quran is guaranteed; again, however distasteful. I would hope our military could defend itself, but that appears questionable based on public comments.

What truly concerns me is the world’s willingness to cow tow to the Muslim extremists and threats. Are we to believe the world’s largest superpower, the USA, and our western allies cannot defend citizens against threats from religious zealots who have become a political movement set on killing all who disagree with them? President Kennedy’s Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, said “appeasing the aggressor only makes him more aggressive.” Repeatedly, this political movement, called Islam, has attacked innocent civilians worldwide: December 1992 in Yemen, 1993 WTC in New York, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania US Embassies killing 200 and injuring 5000, October 2000 USS Cole, 2000 Rizal Day Bombings in the Philippines, WTC 9/11/2001, 2007 Algiers Bombing, 2008 Danish Embassy, and the 2009 Little Rock Arkansas Recruitment building. Additionally, although not tied directly to Al-Qaeda, the Ft. Hood Massacre, failed 2009 Northwest Airlines bombing, and the failed Times Square bombing were also in “the name of Allah.”

Our President offers apologies to the nations of the world that oppress their mothers, daughters, and wives. The same nations with state established religion, censorship, and political oppression. He finds reasons to coddle our enemies, fails to retaliate, and explains we will withdraw troops to satisfy the demands of the petroleum-based kingdoms harboring the Jihadists who hate us. Our enemy issues “fatwa” for denigrating their political idols and writings, Muhammad, Allah and the Quran. Just check with Solomon Rushdie and the creators of South Park. Pastor Jones is considered by many a red-neck racist extremist; maybe he is a guy with the cojones to stand up to our enemy. Most saddening is General Patreaus’ concern for troop safety which makes me wonder who is winning the war. It appears 2,983 died on 9/11/2001 in vain and there can only be one conclusion: we must all live in fear of Islam.

The View

The View

It is amazing how two people can look at the same consideration and see two distinct things. Even a single feature can look different depending on the direction from which it is approached. I live next to a 3,200 foot mountain peak, Mt. Yonah, and admire its beauty every time I drive home. If I approach Mt. Yonah from the Northwest I see a gently rising tree covered mountain, rising majestically to the sky. However, approaching from the Southeast, to go home, the same mountain rises ominously with nearly vertical granite faces, stripped of any foliage and impossible to climb. Although this same peak is visible from miles around, the view and approach would change your perspective about climbing to the summit.

Politics, societal problems, and even relationships anecdotally reflect my mountain. Depending on the point of view taken to attack issues, problems can appear gradually solvable or insurmountable. For example, the oil spill in the Gulf can be viewed as an environmental tragedy or an engineering challenge. Chelsea Clinton’s wedding last weekend was hyped as the wedding of the century, but to the residents of Rhinebeck, New York it was a media frenzy and security nightmare. What has been lost in American debate today is the understanding that debate accommodates differing views; one is not necessarily right or wrong. I learned several years ago feelings cannot be argued, only facts. However, if you watch the news closely, and monitor political debate, arguments center on emotions, feelings, and perceptions, not facts.

Last week a federal judge issued an injunction against Arizona’s controversial immigration bill. This is a hot-button issue with differing views on how to solve a problem. I would argue what is missing is the discussion of the issue at hand. For example, Obama promised immigration reform, but after 19 months in office nothing has transpired leaving Arizona to deal with the issue and thus pushing a bill designed to move the issue to the spotlight. Armed with what I know, I could not possibly consider living in a border state due to the violence, costs, and breakdown in social order. However, I believe we should embrace people risking their lives to come to our country. What matters now is how we view the problem and work together to solve it; effective debate starts with understanding the view.