Make your own free website on Tripod.com
LINKS
ARCHIVE
« December 2017 »
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
You are not logged in. Log in
Friday, 19 May 2006
How to find criminals in your own neighborhood or elsewhere
Topic: Law
You know, the world is a dangerous place. Yes indeed, all you have to do is turn on the local news and see stories of murders, rapes, beatings, robberies, domestic violence, child abuse, etc. How do you know if the neighborhood you live in is safe or even if that guy next door is wanted by the police. Well, online fortunately you can find out a great deal of information about someone and about lots of someone's. Obviously, if you are a lawyer, policeman, judge or NSA official you can just query the computer attached to Lexis Nexis or Westlaw or the equivalent for the police. Put in a name and a few details and there you have it, the complete life history of someone. For the rest of you there is Google and there is Yahoo and A9 to consider. The problem with that is that many of the information sites will not index through the search engines. Newspapers and the like only provide a limited ability to search through their records - unless you pay the fee. Likewise many of the more useful sites which claim to be able to provide you with the low down on that person you are wondering about also charge a fee. All well and good if you are thinking of a particular person. Feel free to pay the fee if you want but most of those sites are bogus. And some of them use purloined information. So take that with a grain of salt.

However, you can check on the neighborhood you live in by searching for your local police department. They often have lists of sexual predators information available. Check on sex offenders I've seen those lists linked to Google Maps to include address and pictures. You can see how many houses down the closest child molester lives. I've seen lists and maps of where the meth lab houses were found. If you'd like to do a bit more research you could go to Corrections Connection here to begin research through the various prison systems. Often times they have lists not only of who is in prison but also of who was in prison. Just the thing if you want to dig up some dirt on someone. This process will be lengthy and many of the states don't really allow you to peruse those records but some do.

You can also watch America's Most Wanted, if it's still on somewhere. or alternately you can watch episodes of Cops to see if you recognize anyone. The FBI still puts out a Top Ten list (not just David Letterman) and I understand there's a no good rotten polygamist on it now. There's also 'Cheaters' which you can only hope to find someone you know and there's also Maury's show where many criminal types are known to sport their gap toothed smiles to the cameras. You could be inventive and make someone a criminal by making some crap up and using your connections to get them put in jail. That only works if perhaps your dad is a lawyer and you have no conscience or soul.

Of course, if you are one of those people who is wanted by the police then you live in fear every day. Every police car that goes by gives you a start and every knock on the door could be your time being up. Heck, I've been a few car lengths behind cars that crash into each other for no other reason than that the drivers have seen a police car. And I doubt those folks were dangerous criminals but I bet those folks thought the police were going to catch them for going too fast. Personally I'm at peace as I happen to see a police car or motorcycle on the side of the road or even coming up behind me. No heart palpitations, no sudden braking. It's amazing what driving the speed limit and not being wanted by the police can do for your heart rate. Of course, if I suddenly see some East German police rolling up beside me I might get a little concerned. I've never been picked up for that incident in West Berlin when I threw some marbles at a East German guard tower, way back when I was eleven or so. Does that answer you question 72-226-147-249.twcny.res.rr.com ?

Posted by gilbert davis at 1:47 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 2 December 2005
Celebrity Multiple Murderer -
Topic: Law

I feel a bit conflicted about this particular death sentence and possible upcoming execution in the State of California. I do not believe in the death penalty or in executions for all the usual reasons. It's not moral to kill, it's not moral for the state to kill, it's not fairly or objectively administered, it does not deter and it is costly. Detailed arguments Here here.

Having said that I look at the circus atmosphere surrounding the upcoming scheduled execution for Stanley 'Tookie' Williams with mixed emotions. While I am against the death penalty I do not have a great deal of sympathy for the usually rightly convicted men and women facing their executions. I won't argue that little Ken or Stan was neglected as a child or was high on drugs or emotionally distraught or make any excuses for someone who murders other people. I look at the case against Tookie here and I see a cold blooded murderer who deserves to be in prison. I think that having murdered four human beings in the course of a robbery excludes you from being nominated for a 'Peace' prize. I think that murdering four people should exclude you from being feted by liberal intellectuals who seem to fall over each other to defend this guy and plea for his life.

As a founding member of the Crips street gang Mr. Williams is directly responsible for a great deal of death and misery in the inner cities and throughout the country. As a multiple murderer he is directly responsible for ending the lives of four human beings. He killed the attendent Albert Lewis Owens in a robbery for $120 at a 7-Eleven on February 28, 1979. He took Mr. Owens to the back of the store and put two shotgun blasts into him. On March 11, 1979 at about 5:30 a.m. Stanley Tookie Williams in the company of another man broke down the door and entered Brookhaven Motel in Los Angeles and shot to death 67 year old Thsai Shai Young, his 63 year old wife Yen-I Yang and their 43 year old daughter Ye Chen Lin. In that murder and robbery they got $50. Victims rights? Here I'm sorry, you won't hear a thing about that in this next two weeks. You won't hear about the four people he killed and you can bet that his celebrity fans don't even know the names of the victims.

Politically speaking Governor Schwarzenegger's decision will be an interesting one. Based on the circumstances of the crime and the avowed Republican sensibilities he has there is no good reason for him to grant clemency. If he does cave in to the pressure from the left it will be a repudiation of his own values. Any which way he spins it he'll have lost the Republican support in favor of the Democratic support that he won't get no matter what he does. An interesting dilemma.

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Brault, during the Davis administration was the prosecution's lawyer in an appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Williams was a poor candidate for leniency.

"Having spoken at length with all of the victims' family members, I think that Mr. Williams is just another murderer that deserves to be executed," she said. "There's been so many deaths at his hands or the hands of his followers that I don't think writing a few children's books erases that."

Tookie Williams web site is here.

Posted by gilbert davis at 3:25 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 14 September 2005
Listening to the Roberts hearings
Now Playing: NPR- Senate Hearings on Judge John Roberts
Topic: Law


It's been remarkably polite if you forget about Biden yesterday. The democrats are basically keeping their liberal credentials in place by asking him questions that he won't answer. They will further keep their credentials in place by not voting for him regardless of the answers he gives. He'll continue to not answer a single question if it might be in contention. So, it's a big show meaning nothing much. Interesting hearing him talk about Kelo and the quote from Blackstone which says that the government may not take property away from someone and give it to another. Clear as can be and no hint of irony. Words don't matter, meanings don't matter. All those things can be circled and nullified with the proper backdoor reasoning as seen in Kelo and the pre Kelo cases which didn't raise as big of a stink.

Posted by gilbert davis at 11:04 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 3 June 2005
Advertising and Other Lies
Now Playing: European Techno Trance Radio -Shoutcast
Topic: Law
I often times cast a cynical eye on the things around me and occasionally, occasionally I am rewarded for my eternal vigilance with independent confirmation of my observations. You can see outright lies on the TV and in advertising every single day of your life and it's so pervasive and ubiquitous that most of us just accept it, believe it or tune it out to some degree. Folks believe mistakenly that their government will protect them from false advertising but even when they do take a diet pill or electric weight belt
off the market it's only after the crooks have run millions of dollars in ads and taken many millions in from idiots who believe their fake product must be real since the government let them on TV. Look at every fat pill cure with their steaming piles of lies designed to play on the fears and hopes of overweight people. "Placebo is 'TOO' powerful for the person
with five to ten pounds Vanity pounds to consider using" "Use this ab scruncheroo for only ten minutes a day and you too will have the abs of this twenty year old athlete you see using the scruncheroo. I mean heck, it must be true since you can see six pack ab people using those products.

Same with those creams and lotions that make you younger -used by 17 year old models. You see smoother younger looking skin cause you're looking at smoother, younger looking skin belonging to young people to begin with. Duh. Hello. Anybody home there? It's a big steaming pile of lies. And of course it's dead on true that drinking this beer or that wine
will make supermodels fall all over you. Same for new cars, clothes, perfume and the right steak sauce. Drive the right car, wear the right clothes and you'll be fighting off beautiful women or men. No really, it's true. I saw it on TV so it must be true.

With all of that in mind just the other day I remember looking at the hideously overpriced selection of shaving razors in the grocery stores.
Two, three, four blades, lotion strips, vibrating blades and heroic fast names all at premium prices. The ads claim you'll get the best closest shave ever, that regardless of which way your hairs run the magic blades will cut them all smoothly and so close they even actually pull those hairs out and shave them below the hair line. Blah blah blah. Bulldookie so deep and wide you can't possibly escape the ad copy. With all of that in mind you can rest assured that your right to not be lied to is being taken care of
my concerned citizens. Why just the other day hereGillette was taken to court for its unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims for its 'M3Power Razor' -
those claims stated that the magical razor did raise hairs up and away from your skin to provide the closest possible razoring experience. Magical stuff worthy of Merlin himself. Let's see, the Judge, Janet C. Hall didn't see it that way and granted the preliminary injunction prohibiting Gillette from using that bit of hyperbole/pack of lies in their advertising. The good citizen that called Gillette on their false advertising? Why that would be Schick-Wilkinson Sword who happen to make the other major razor

Ah, the irony of it all.

Posted by gilbert davis at 10:08 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Sunday, 29 May 2005
Pentium D and accompanying 945g chipset-To Never Buy
Topic: Law
DRM on an intel chip, the information just hit Slashdot today. The article discussing it is here. It has 'Active Management Technology which according to the article "...will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems." Yah right. When certain imaginary nether areas housing the evil and bad people to be punished freezes over will be the time I buy something like that. A shame too, I've always trusted Intel chips and now I'll not buy another one.

Posted by gilbert davis at 11:12 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 15 April 2005
Ethiopian Scam for Arabs
Topic: Law
Somehow, don't ask me how, I have found myself on somebodies mailing list for Arab folks. I know this because I often get these emailed invitations to join some Arab website with discussion forums and such in Arab languages I don't even recognize. Probably from visiting a link from LGF lgf site At any rate, got in my mailbox today a version of the somewhat amusing Ethiopian scam. You remember that one, 'I am the ex President of someplace or the other and I need to get my money out of the country and I just need your banking information to transfer a huge amount into your account...blah blah blah.' So blatantly absurd that it's a wonder it ever got anyone to fall for it. But then there is no end to greed and being blinded by it. Which brings me to the email. To my latest 'Dear Friend' email. It's from my good friend ALHAJI ABBAS AZIZ as it states in the email. I'm pretty sure it's for the Arab audience here. I'll let him speak for himself. Notice the spelling of the words specialist, attached and hospital. Great spelling other than that. And if you are googling the contents of this email -IT'S A SCAM!!! Okay? Amusing unless you actually believe it and do something stupid like giving a total stranger your bank account information.

>>>>>>>>>>DEAR FRIEND, I AM ALHAJI ABBAS AZIZ. I AM A CITIZEN OF Saudi Arabia, BUT I AM RESIDENT IN DUBAI ,CANCER RESEACH SPESHALIST HOSPITAL- UNITED Arab EMIRATES. I AM VERY SICK WITH CANCER AND THE DOCTORS SAY I HAVE ABOUT 2 MONTHS LEFT TO LIVE. I SEND YOU THIS MAIL WITH THE HELP OF MY PRIVATE NURSE (FRANCIS NAMANI IBRAHIM) ASSISTING ME. I HAVE LITTLE TIME, SO I HAVE COMMITTED IT TO SPREADING MY WEALTH TOWARDS BETTER HEALTH CARES FOR MANKIND. I DON'T KNOW YOU, BUT DUE TO MY CONDITION I AM CONTACTING YOU WITH THE HOPE THAT YOU WILL CARRY OUT MY INSTRUCTION FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY. I HAVE US$20MILLION DEPOSITED WITH A TRUST SECURITY BANK IN EUROPE. I WANT YOU TO TAKE CUSTODY OF THE DEPOSIT AND USE IT FOR CHARITY WORKS ALL OVER THE WORLD AND ATTARCHED MY NAME TO THEM AS I LOST MY ENTIRE FAMILY IN CAR ACCIDENT (WIFE & TWO CHILDREN) IN CAIRO - EGYPT WHY ON HOLIDAY IN MAY 2003. IF YOU ARE READY TO DO THIS AND CARRY OUT MY WISH, THEN SEND ME YOUR CONTACT DETAILS. WITH THE HELP OF MY PRIVATE NURSE I WILL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU. I AM IN THE RIGHT WING IN THE CANCER RESEARCH SPESHALIST HOPITAL ALONG WITH ALL OTHER DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THIS TRANSACTION. I WILL ALSO INFORM YOU OF YOUR PERCENTAGE IN MY NEXT MAIL. PLEASE SEND YOUR REPLY TO ANY OF MY PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESSES BELOW. I AWAIT YOUR REPLY AND MAY ALLAH BLESS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. SINCERELY YOURS, ALHAJI ABBAS AZIZ.
EMAIL:{fnamani5@hotmail.com} <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I let the email address in here for the spambots to spam the dude. Seems only right.

Posted by gilbert davis at 11:19 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 2 March 2005
Roper v. Simmons - No Execution for minors
Topic: Law
My first reaction to reading this decision syllabus
is wow- shades of emanations and penumbras. I agree with the result of the decision but I find myself marveling at the lack of credible logic involved. It's not completely consistent with stare decisis definition
since it overturns the decision of the court in Stanford v. Kentucky syllabus
which was decided in 1989 and allowed the execution of minors. It seems that the justices have again overstepped their role as interpretors of the law and have gone to their self appointed godlike roles of moral determiners of what ought to be.

I'm conflicted. I don't believe that the death penalty is right on any level. It shouldn't exist. It's existence in the United States is a point of shame and I'm glad that it's been narrowed even further. At last the US has left the company of Sudan in allowing executions of minors. Unfortunately we are still in the company of China, Sudan and Saudi Arabia in allowing executions at all.

Should the Court be looking to unratified International Treaties to help it decide? No. Should the Court be looking beyond the law itself to decide it's cases? I think that if you say no then you say that the court wasn't right in overturning Scott v. Sandford - which as you know decided that a black man was not a citizen of the US and showed that the only place in the constitution that the subject came up showed blacks as property. The fullness and fog of time has shown the first finding by the Supreme Court to be in error and the ones after that to be the right ones. But Scott v. Sandford was 'Constitutional' as the constitution was written at the time. We could look at this decision in the same vein, a moral and 'constitutional' decision that in the fullness of time will not be raved against and will be simply acknowledged as the right decision which causes some political heat and fury from those who disagree.

If sound and fury at the time of a Supreme Court decision were the criteria by which we judged the rightness of the decisions at hand then Brown v. Board of Education would have been wrong and should have resulted in impeachment of Supreme Court Judges. If the issue here is what level of moral decision making by the Supreme Court can be absorbed by the country it seems that past decisions have not brought revolution except perhaps where it was needed. (Civil War).

In this case the logic was tortured and it would have nice if there was more to pin the decision on. As it is, the ranting on talk radio and right wing outlets will give a weeks worth of airtime and ink. In reality, there were very few states that allowed this aspect of the death penalty, fewer still that carried it through. The end result is not much different than it would have been if they ruled the other way. One man who is now off of death row still is looking at a life behind bars. The case details show that he richly deserves every single day they keep him there. He has won no victories and will not be out to prey on innocent people again. His life, his celebrity if you will will die down and the circle of people around him who have provided him with support and celebrity will fade away and in the end he will still be in his cell. A fitting punishment.

Posted by gilbert davis at 5:34 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 2 March 2005 8:20 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 24 February 2005
Welcome to your Serfdom - Kelo v. City of New London
Topic: Law
Kelo v. City of New London
This is a case about the government taking your property to give to another for their private use. The rationale behind taking your property and giving it to another private use is that the other person or corporation will improve the land, increase the tax base of the land and in a trickle down sort of way, provide for a larger tax base for the local government involved. So you and your little property taxes are not enough when Wal Mart comes a knocking. This simply means that your serfdom becomes more apparent. What you own is not your own. The right to property which our forefathers fought for and tore away from the English empire for and even enshrined in the Constitution mean nothing. It's more like the idea that all the lands belong to the King and you use them at his suffrage. Like I said, welcome to your serfdom.

Using eminent domain the government is allowed to seize your property for a public use. The Fifth Amendment : 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 for the same offense 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.

In reading the various blogs and opinions Professor Bainbridge Volokh on this I see many lawyers dissecting the words and separating this section 'without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' Some are arguing that the comma after public use means that 'private use' may then be allowed. Right.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which means that it isn't there, so you can't make it up. Not to mention that original intent would be clear here. The Fifth Amendment speaks to curbing the power of the government, not giving power to the government. Of course, this doesn't really matter. What matters is what those 9 Justices do. Separated as they are from the world in many ways it is possible that they will see this as an extension of the opening given in the Fifth Amendment to the fight against urban blight. The somewhat successful efforts to condemn blighted properties and turning them into something useful. The key words are 'blighted properties' and the desire to take something dangerous and blighted and eliminate it. By simply eliminating the problems in these cases there is an improvement. In the Kelo case the government is taking perfectly good homes, condemning them and giving them over to a private developer. In addition, the actual use for this property isn't even known. It is along the slippery slope of takings by the government and a instance of the natural progression of taking more power and more power until the original use and meaning of the Fifth Amendment is so distorted as to be unrecognizable. It's a shame and if the buzz after the oral arguments are to be believed then your property rights aren't worth the deed they are written on.

Posted by gilbert davis at 8:50 AM EST
Updated: Thursday, 24 February 2005 8:52 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 13 December 2004
University of Dayton School of Law
Now Playing: ERA - The Very Best Of
Topic: Law


A visit to the University of Dayton grounds and I managed to take a better picture of the Law School. Actually got pictures of the old and the new. Have to prepare the old boy for this site as well. Big and modern and a wonderful place all in all. I walked around the grounds looking for some planted tree or some bench or something that noted and memorialized Professor Brown who died shortly after I graduated from there. He taught Corporations and was sick back then. I didn't find a bench or tree, perhaps I didn't look hard enough. It would be a shame if he isn't remembered there. It would be a shame likewise if Andy Johnson wasn't remembered at the school.

Posted by gilbert davis at 10:21 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 22 July 2004
The People's Republic of Texas
Topic: Law
Perhaps you remember the story of the woman in Texas who was charged with violating the Texas obscenity laws for selling a vibrator to two 'undercover police officers' posing as a married couple. The important thing to remember about this story is that the police department in the city of Burleson- Johnson County thought the idea of selling vibrators to married couples in private parties (think tupperware) was such a threat to the People's Republic of Texas that they did set up the sting operation to catch Joanne Webb, a mother of three and a former schoolteacher in the town of Burleson. This story received national attention, something the fine police of Burleson didn't expect and as a result of the national spotlight, the Johnson County Attorney, perhaps feeling the pressure of the sunshine, asked the Judge to dismiss the case 'to prevent the county from wasting resources on it.' Now they had no problem wasting resources on it when they simply thought they could put the mother of three in jail for her heinous crime but now, to save money, - not to do the right thing or even admitting they were stupid- they had the case dismissed to save money. Another day in the People's Republic.

Posted by gilbert davis at 11:57 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 13 July 2004
Response to 'gadlaw knows me'
Now Playing: Renee Olstead-Female Jazz Vocalist
Topic: Law
Someone who knows me but didn't identify themselves commented on the last comment I made about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. (by the way-it's okay to come out the closet) That person said

"The prisoners at Guantaanamo bay do not have the same rights as you or me, due to the fact that they are POW's."

Um, No. Not correct. If the prisoners at Guantaanamo were called POW's-(Prisoners of War) they would be afforded a good number of rights as per the Geneva Convention concerning prisoners rights. The United States signed onto this treaty in 1949 as have most civilized nations in the world. This treaty provides for humane treatment, certain rights, red cross visits etc. Geneva Convention

The problem is that the prisoners in Guantaanamo are afforded- or have been afforded, no status at all. This means according to the government, they could be held indefinitely. This means, incarceration forever, without a hearing, without a trial. This in itself is not an american value or trait. It is a trait and value of all communist and all dictatorships in the world. The hauling away of people in the middle of the night, no due process, no following humane treatment as per treaty-the actions of 'evil' countries.

What treating people who may or may not be terrorists (remember that they have had no hearings, nobody to speak up for them to defend them) in this 'nonamerican' fashion does, is to denigrate the values of America. Prisoners of War are given rights through treaties that we have signed. American citizens have rights assured to them through the constitution of the United States and their state constitutions and those rights are constantly being shaped by laws that are passed and by judgments by judges and ultimately the Supreme Court. Of course, the use by the Bush administration of the 'Material Witness' aspect of the law which allows them to grad someone and also hold them indefinitely without trial or hearing is also being challenged and will be determined to be blatantly unconstitutional.
Material Witnesses

The people in Guantaanamo are unique in the fact that the Bush administration has decided, against international law, and against the constitution, that no rights at all can be afforded to them. -The Supreme Court has said NO- that is not correct. These are people picked up in Afghanistan, many of whom have been demonstrated to have been completely innocent of anything other than being in Afghanistan, people who have been incorrectly and mistakenly hauled up and put in a prison for years before being let out-people without recourse or rights- if you can tell me why under any circumstances that this is 'American' or demostrates the freedom and rights that we as Americans fight for and die for, then you are indeed a wizard. -

Posted by gilbert davis at 11:16 AM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 13 July 2004 12:00 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 8 July 2004
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay- "You Have Rights"
Topic: Law
Only a couple of years late but the people captured in the war in Afghanistan are getting some small level of due process afforded to them. Prisoner Rights RevealedDue Process

In the words of attorney for some 51 of the prisoners, Rachel Meerpool, he described the procedures being contemplated as "inadequate and illegal, and they fail to satisfy the Courts ruling." This is pretty typical when the government feels no great compulsion to comply with court rulings they disagree with. The government will go very slowly and with as little actual progress towards compliance as possible. In the rage that followed the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center it's understandable that any feeling human would act in a vengeful and rage filled way. But the government isn't allowed to do that. It's supposed to be there to protect us and to follow the constitution which is supposed to be our ultimate protection- from the government. When a government goes past the letter and the spirit of the constitution the only thing to seperate us from the dictatorships and totalitarian governments we rail against is our hollow rhetoric. In that case you have China and others responding to our complaints about their human rights violations with valid complaints about us. For every human being that is denied human rights in Guantanamo we are all lessened for it. Yes, we are enraged by the attacks and those people who attacked us attacked our way of life, they attacked our visions of our own freedom and our response to that was to lessen our own freedoms. It's not right, the government knows it's not right and yet they do it. They fight battles in court that they cannot win (if the constitution has any meaning at all) and they defend the idea that rights and constitutionality don't apply to everyone. It's our shame.

Posted by gilbert davis at 2:57 AM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink
Tuesday, 29 June 2004
Great News for Constitutionality
Now Playing: Tough Crowd-Comedy Central Show
Topic: Law
Great News for Constitutionality

All kinds of good news from the Supreme Court which comes on the heels of the recent (bad) Hiibel decision (which allows the states to stop you and require you give your name-beyond the Terry Stop rules). There is the MISSOURI v. SEIBERT decision which said that the Miranda warning decision is still quite valid. Police must inform you of your rights to remain silent and that anything you say can and will be held against you. The 'work around' employed by police increasingly has been to question a person, then mirandize them, then question them again and then using the first interrogation to work the confession, information they are looking for. No no no said Justice Souter, joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer-with Justice Kennedy in concurrence. By saying no to this strategy, the police can no longer use it as a interrogation technique.

HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD,- Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen was in Afghanistan when Northern Alliance people caught him. When the US figured out that he was American, he was taken to the US and has been in the Brig for the duration. He had been labeled as a 'enemy combatant' which would give him, according to the government, no rights at all and in fact this designation would make him eligable to be kept in jail, without lawyers and without contact -Indefinitely. Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The court said that you can't just throw someone in a hole and forget about them, theoretically, he gets his day in court. We know that it takes an interminal amount of time to get your day in court even if there is no question about your right to be there. This guy, perhaps a bad guy, has spent that time in a cell and he is still in a cell. Logically, constitutionally, by every idea of what is supposed to be good about America, you cannot be tossed into a cell indefinitely, this brings to mind the horror stories about the Man in the Iron Mask, -the sorts of things that happen in historically distant times or in third world dictatorships. We could feel superior in the knowledge that we are protected by a constitution and those idiots in other countries weren't. Instead, we are forced to sit here for years and hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing for the constitution and the country.
Having said that, if the government has a case then they should bring it, and if they don't then let him go.


RASUL et al. v. BUSH- Do the Guantanamo Bay people have any rights at all? Again, they've been there for years now with the US government saying of course these folks have no rights and we could keep them detained indefinitely. No review of their detention, of their incarceration, of their situation. Well of course, it's not like they are americans after all with rights, like say, umm, Hamdi? Padilla? Oops, never mind bad argument. Again, late but the Supreme Court does the right thing, Held: United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.

RUMSFELD V. PADILLA- Let's see, oops guys, wrong district, please refile again.

Posted by gilbert davis at 1:47 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 24 June 2004
Judge Diddles, loses control-removed from Bench
Now Playing: Wallflowers-One Headlight
Topic: Law
I can't let this one pass on by. Courtesy of The Drudge Report, courtesy of The Smoking Gun comes the story of a Judge who found that his own pecker was more interesting and more important than his distinguished life as a Judge. Incredible but true, at least if court filings were to be believed and come to think of it, that does not make them true. Ahem, the allegations though, the ones calling for the removal of District Judge Donald D. Thompson for a violation of Canons 1,2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 4 and for Conduct Constituting an Offense Involving Moral Turpitude in Violation of Oklahoma Constitution Article VII -A sec 1(B) basically said that the good Judge was caught on many occasions whacking off in his seat, during trials and using a number of noisy devices to accomplish this feat. Completely amazing and here is the link Smoking Gun Whack Off Judge

Most folks will find this story funny and shocking. The real thing to think about in all of this is that while hopefully Judges whacking noisily during trials in their courtrooms is rare indeed it is important to note that it went of for a very long time with a lot of people knowing about it. The thing to think about here is the fact that Judges generally have too much power with little oversight to hold their behavior in check. If a man can whack off, dig a whole in his desk, use noisy devices, and fire people around him who are 'cooperating' with the investigation against him what do you think a judge with as few scruples can do when his misconduct is more mundane and his power is so complete? Power in any form is corrupting and we are flawed creatures. Judges, like everyone else need to be under a effective oversight to keep them under the law and under control.

Posted by gilbert davis at 11:48 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 1:48 AM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink
Monday, 21 June 2004
Let's See Your Papers Old Man- Hiibel
Now Playing: Dulce Pontes-Portuguese Music
Topic: Law
Let's see your Papers Old Man-Hiibel

I read the Supreme Court decision HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. today. Actually I read some of the news reports, then I read the
decision then I read some more of the reports in light of actually having read the decision.
Naturally, some of the reports were hysterical and others were less so. To me, the Supreme Court
has given up it's fictional mantle of dispassionate decision making ability a long time ago if
it ever really existed except in grade school classes. I know the force and strength of the
court lies somewhat in the illusion that it is the "Supreme Court" and as such it makes the
proper decisions. If this was in any way true then the whole battle over Supreme Court nominees
wouldn't be such a war. But the Congress, the President and everyone else knows that the
decisions of the Supreme Court are less a matter of right and wrong and Constitutionality and
more a matter of right and left. If only Al Gore would have been confirmed as the President
based on his winning of the popular vote and of winning the electorial college vote then perhaps
another Justice would have retired and a different fellow would have been on the Court. This
would have made a different decision today and every other day. Of course, that didn't happen,
the old Justices hold on with a death grip to their places hoping and waiting to be replaced by
someone of their own political and philosophical bent because its really only a matter of
philosophy and political viewpoint. It isn't about what is Constitutional at all. The argument
about what is constitutional starts off with ideology and goes from there in it's many
intellectual trappings. Original intent, living constitution, all just the intellectual
trappings used to excuse the viewpoints. Well, in the Hiibel case welcome to another step closer
to the day when all your rights and all your freedoms are gone. Like an old 30's black and white
movie the nazi police come in and demand everyones 'papers' we are another step closer to that
reality. The use of the image of a nazi policeman demanding everyones papers brought justifiable
horror and distaste when used in the movies. It was another illustration of why the Nazi's must
be defeated by the forces of good and the forces of freedom. Well sorry, what a difference some
70 years makes. It turns out the police can ask you for your papers without any reason. I mean
really, you know and I know that they can make up the justification later on. "That person was
acting suspiciously", "he matched the description of a known bankrobber.

The slippery slope has never been slippier. The slope has never been more inclined. The excuse
of terrorism, the excuse of enemies everywhere that was trotted out in the 50's is now here for
good. We know the truth of it because some terrorists, some jihadists destroyed the World Trade
Center towers. So we know the bad guys are everywhere, taking liberties away for security is
therefore justified. And a big government needs to know what each and every citizen is doing
anyways. It's all so logical and all so insidious. The time of freedom is over, the time of the
illusion of freedom is over as well. Perhaps it never really existed but it did in the ethos and
the mythology of America. It existed in the mind of a man, perhaps not a just and virtuous man.
but a man in Nevada who thought that he didn't have to tell the police his name. A man who
thought that part of being an American meant that he didn't have to give his name to police when
he wasn't driving and wasn't engaged in any crime. Welcome to America where it's a crime to not
tell the police your name. But of course, they already do know your name. They know where you
live, they know what you do, your credit history and the books you buy. Welcome to the future,

Welcome to the present.

Posted by gilbert davis at 9:58 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 1:49 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older