-Caveat Lector-
Heads Up
A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia
September 12, 1999 #151
by: Doug Fiedor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EXERPT:
A RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE AT HOME
Except in an emergency, it is a violation of civil rights
for government agents to enter a home without a search warrant
when not invited in. So says at least one U.S. Court of Appeals.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v.
Floyd (9715385), "involves whether a social worker and a police
officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry
into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation
of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a
search warrant and without a special exigency."
The facts of the case are simple: Some neighbor called
Social Services with a complaint that they heard the Calabretta's
youngest child crying something like "No, no, no daddy" one
night. Evidently, that's all it takes in California.
The social worker, Floyd, went to the home to investigate
but, as was her right, Mrs. Calabretta would not allow Floyd in.
So, Floyd went to the office and made a report. Then, Floyd went
on a two week vacation.
Somewhere along the line, Floyd learned that the
Calabrettas were a very religious family and home schooled their
children. That being a red flag in the face of government social
workers and teachers, Floyd called for police assistance in
visiting the family. And, this is where things get a little
uncomfortable:
Many police officers follow the law and would not enter
the Calabretta's home without either being invited in or having a
warrant. Some police officers will bully their way in, via
intimidation. Others will do anything it takes, including
shooting, to get in. This police officer used intimidation.
Well, social worker and police officer claimed they have
something called "qualified immunity" for what they did and
therefore are protected against any civil or criminal action --
even though they obviously violated the Calabretta's Fourth
Amendment rights. Their theory was that an administrative search
to protect the welfare of children does not carry the requirement
that they first secure a warrant. The Court, however, did not
agree. And now things get very interesting.
The court said that "the facts in this case are
noteworthy for the absence of emergency." No one was in
distress. "The police officer was there to back up the social
worker's insistence on entry against the mother's will, not
because he perceived any imminent danger of harm." And he should
have known better. Furthermore, "had the information been more
alarming, had the social worker or police officer been alarmed,
had there been reason to fear imminent harm to a child, this
would be a different case, one to which we have no occasion to
speak. A reasonable official would understand that they could
not enter the home without consent or a search warrant."
And now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals defines the law:
"In our circuit, a reasonable official would have known
that the law barred this entry. Any government official can be
held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted
right to enter peoples' homes at will. We held in White v. Pierce
County (797 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986)), a child welfare
investigation case, that 'it was settled constitutional law that,
absent exigent circumstances, police could not enter a dwelling
without a warrant even under statutory authority where probable
cause existed.' The principle that government officials cannot
coerce entry into people's houses without a search warrant or
applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a
search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer
would know it. Under White, appellants' claim, that 'a search
warrant is not required for home investigatory visits by social
workers,' is simply not the law."
The Court continues later:
"The Fourth Amendment preserves the 'right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses . . . .' without limiting
that right to one kind of government official. It is not as
though all reasonable people thought any government official
could enter private houses against the occupants' will, without
search warrant or special exigency, and then White said that
police officers could not, without speaking about social workers.
Rather, everyone knew that the government could not so enter
houses, and White said that principle was well established, in
the context of a child abuse investigation."
And there we have it: "Any government official can be
held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted
right to enter peoples' homes at will. The principle that
government officials cannot coerce entry into people's houses
without a search warrant or applicability of an established
exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well
established that any reasonable officer would know it. The
Fourth Amendment preserves the 'right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses . . . .' without limiting that right to
one kind of government official."
In other words, just say no. "A social worker is not
entitled to sacrifice a family's privacy and dignity to her own
personal views on how parents ought to discipline their
children."
The Courts reasoning for this ruling was simple and
straightforward:
"The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in
their homes includes the interests of both parents and children
in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of
the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the
children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the
parent's and the child's interest in the privacy of their
relationship with each other."
Read the complete opinion at:
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9715385.html
WILL THEY COVER UP WACO?
Operation Showtime was perhaps one of the best armed
"police action" operations in American history. >From the newest
in spy aircraft and listening devices to the best armored
vehicles available, no expense was sparred.
Fully automatic assault rifles, and ammunition, were
plentiful -- many equipped with flash and noise suppressers.
Many hundreds of assorted grenades and pyrotechnic devices were
also available, as were at least four methods of delivering
debilitating gasses.
Any and all of these things can start a fire. Yet,
government officials still maintain, with a straight face no
less, that they were not responsible for the resultant fire at
Waco.
There were huge floodlights used in the operation, yet
the Texas Rangers also found flares that were apparently fired by
federal agents. Some of these flares were of the type favored by
the FBI to intentionally start building fires.
Evidence logs showed many such spent flares were
recovered in the weeks after the Davidian compound burned
following the FBI/Special Forces siege. Previous Congressional
hearings on the Waco disaster learned nothing of any of these
devices because those testifying from the FBI, the Justice
Department and the Army covered it up. The fact is, they lied to
Congress. They intentionally committed perjury. Repeatedly and
continuously.
Now there is proof that quite a number of Special Forces
personnel were there. So many, in fact, they were even rotating
through their British Army counterparts, as if they were proud of
themselves, or something. Did the British help kill Americans?
The FBI says it did not shoot into the building that last
day. However, there is proof that at least two people were
spraying automatic gunfire into the back of the building during
the fire. Perhaps FBI plans to point the finger of blame at the
Army. But, if that happens, yet another inconvenient question
pops up: Who was in charge?
Rep. Asa Hutchinson said of a new round of Congressional
investigations, "We need to review first of all the cause of the
fire."
Sure. But before that there is that little matter of
perjury before the first Congressional hearings. Then, we need
to know exactly how many Army personnel were aiding the ATF
attack and who gave the reinforcement order for the military to
back up the FBI.
The question of who started the fire will be answered
with the FBI/Army's own films. Whoever was firing those flares
from grenade launchers at the rear of the building started the
fire. And no matter who that may have been, we are certain it
was not the Branch Davidians.
Experts were driving those tanks and Bradleys. That is
evident to anyone who has ever been at the controls of one of
those beasts. FBI agents did not drive the tanks. Which means,
simply, Army personnel assaulted American citizens.
Yes, there are quite a few questions to be answered, Rep.
Hutchinson. But the question of who started the fire will be
answered by the evidence withheld from the first round of
Congressional hearings.
When the above simple questions are answered, Congress
must then be prepared to immediately charge half of those
testifying before previous Waco hearings with both contempt of
Congress and perjury. The American people will demand at least
that.
Now comes Attorney General Janet Reno's offer to former
Senator John Claggett Danforth of Missouri to head an independent
inquiry. Before entering the Senate (in 1976), he served as
attorney general in Missouri for eight years. Evidently, that
makes Danforth a skilled law enforcement officer to those in
Washington.
Generally speaking, Danforth was a middle of the road
liberal who supported big government in many ways. His two
"conservative" strengths were his tendency to vote for lower
taxes and strong national security. However, "independent" from
the bowels of government he is not. He is a Washington insider
and can be expected to conduct the investigation in a way that
will not cause many waves. On the other hand, John Danforth is
known by many to be an honest man.
The basic problem, as we see it, is that the "independent
investigation" will be no more independent than Janet Reno wishes
it to be. And, if Janet Reno wanted that information out, it
would have been made public years ago.
Danforth will be reporting to Eric Holder at Justice --
big government personified. Holder is expected to try to block
as much public disclosure as possible. Therefore, if we see grand
jury testimony, rather than public hearings, we will know a
typical Washington cover-up is in progress.
Right now, the best that we can hope for is that the
outside "investigation" and the Congressional hearings feed on
each other. That is, that they start different lines of inquiry
early on and then share information and make it public. To
insure this, we should start putting pressure on our Members of
Congress immediately.
Look for Holder to cover up everything possible and block
Danforth as much as he can. Because, if all the evidence ever
leaks out, many in government will be out of work and some will
be heading for prison.
That will probably not be allowed. Not unless we force
it.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
