"America is at that awkward stage, it's too late to work within the system, and it's too early to shoot the bastards." -Clair Wolfe So when will the time come? I think I can see it from here, certainly within my lifetime, and it's getting to the point where I wish they would start it so we can get it over with. Where did that damn line in the sand go? Madd Maxx- -----Original Message----- From: K. Lamoreaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 12:55 PM To: lis- LEAF Subject: [Lis-LEAF] Tyranny is Merely "Inconvenient"; WHEN BARNEY FIFE IS GOD FROM: http://www.ccops.org/ April 28, 2001 Tyranny is Merely "Inconvenient" say Justices One day in 1997, Gail Atwater was returning from soccer practice along a gravel road in Lago Vista, Texas. She was driving 15 miles per hour as her two children, heads out the window, scanned the roadside for a lost toy. At that moment, police officer Bart Turek pulled her over. He had stopped her once before, suspecting that her son was riding without a seat belt. That time, the officer had been mistaken. This time, all three Atwaters were beltless -- a misdemeanor bearing a maximum fine of $50 apiece. In front of a growing crowd of witnesses, Turek screamed at Mrs. Atwater that he'd seen her before, and that this time she was going to jail. Turek handcuffed Atwater and refused her request to be allowed to take her children to a neighbor's home two doors away. One of the onlookers eventually took charge of the terrified four- and six-year-olds, while their mother was hauled to jail, and forced to empty her pockets and submit to the indignity of a mug shot and fingerprinting. On April 23, 2001, U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, writing for the 5-to-4 majority in the case of Atwater v. Lago Vista, claimed that this example of a police state in action was merely "... inconvenient to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment." Inconvenient? What kind of person imagines that being dragged from your terrified children in handcuffs is a mere "inconvenience"? What kind of person equates being booked, fingerprinted and jailed with genuine inconveniences, such as having to stand in line too long at the supermarket or having a business appointment canceled at the last minute? Anyone making those claims understands neither the Fourth Amendment nor the growing gulf between ordinary Americans and the government they once believed existed to protect and serve them. What kind of person imagines that anyone, anywhere, can rightly be jailed for failing to wear a seat belt? Only an elitist who knows he himself will never be forced to endure the indignities he imposes upon the riff raff -- the riff raff being millions of ordinary Americans. The riff raff being you and me. What Bart Turek did to Gail Atwater was a naked -- and blatantly unconstitutional -- abuse of police power. It is also a perfect example of how laws "for your own good" (for safety and "for the children") are being used as America's latest excuse for tyrannical ruthlessness. The ACLU, in filing an amicus brief in Atwater v. Lago Vista, noted, "The Texas statute authorizing custodial arrest for any violation of its traffic code resembles the general warrants that were one of the principal motivating factors behind the American Revolution and the drafting of the Fourth Amendment." During oral arguments in December 2000, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed, saying Atwater had the perfect Fourth Amendment case. Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the other hand, shrugged, "It is not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk." Although he was probably unaware of it, Kennedy was pointing the way toward the future. Now -- with the august blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court, and if your state laws allow it -- a cop who dislikes you, or who thinks you're giving him lip, or who's just having a bad day, can drag you off to jail for his own satisfaction. If you're known for fighting city hall or being a political activist, you can expect to be targeted and harassed for every broken taillight, misplaced insurance card, rolling stop or puff of excess exhaust from your tailpipe. As usual, expect minorities and the poor to be the most frequent targets of abuse; if police can't stop them for their race, or can't find sufficient drugs or cash in their possession to justify civil forfeiture, they can still threaten them with jail for exceeding the speed limit by five miles per hour. But we are all in danger - as the ordinary rural housewife, Mrs. Atwater, discovered. Mark these names well: David Souter; William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They are the five who voted to let the police state storm America's highways. We might have expected it of the first three, but Scalia and Thomas, both Republican appointees, have just forfeited their claim to freedom lovers' trust. (Don't expect G.W. Bush's appointees to be any better.) The only thing these five can do now to redeem themselves is show their solid, unshakable support for the Second Amendment. Short of that, they are about as useless to freedom as that bubonic plague. We owe a vote of thanks to Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens for trying to hold back the steady stomp of the jackboots -- despite the fact that several of these four are not normally defenders of the Constitution. You can find the complete text of the Supreme Court's decision on Atwater v. Lago Vista at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.html The Liberty Crew ************************************************ http://www.etherzone.com/marr050301.shtml WHEN BARNEY FIFE IS GOD ROADSIDE EXECUTIONS AT OFFICER DISCRETION By: Ron Marr The world is run by bureaucrats and bean-counters. Those controlling your destiny may be found in both government and the private sector. They may be Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative. They may be white or black, gay or straight, stone-cold sober or whacked on goofballs. They may speak in tongues, pierce their tongues or chew their tongues. The bureaucrats and bean counters are a diverse group, but they share three common traits. First, they will screw with your life, involving themselves in your personal affairs and causing infinite grief. Second, they will destroy your life, forcing you to endure tax audits, loan refusals, bad credit and even arrest. Third, they will mess with and/or destroy your life simply because they can. Irritate a bureaucrat at your own risk. Two recent events exemplify my point. Not only are bureaucrats in charge, they are rapidly expanding their commitment toward absconding with your remaining liberties. The Supreme Court of the United States recently decreed that traffic cops can arrest and incarcerate people stopped for minor violations. In a ruling affecting 185 million drivers, the court voted 5-4 that a Texas policeman was justified in handcuffing and imprisoning a woman for failing to wear her seat belt. The Justices who voted to grant Barney Fife plenipotentiary powers worthy of a Nazi inquisitor were conservatives Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. Joining this quartet, showing us once again that power brokers care little of the ideological differences of left and right, was the "liberal" David Souter. I wonder why the high court didn't eliminate trials and juries entirely, sanctioning roadside executions based on officer discretion? Expect police abuses to soar, for this ruling permits cops to arrest and confine citizens for misdemeanors normally punishable only by fines. You can be hauled away for loitering, littering, spitting on the sidewalk or a thousand other infractions. From here on out it's a small leap to being arrested because a cop decides you might be THINKING about exceeding the speed limit. Welcome to Police State, USA. Wipe your feet and keep your eyes lowered. Punishment is henceforth based upon deference. Proper groveling when in breach of minor statutes will likely result in a mere ticket. Disrespect is an unpardonable transgression, and failure to behave in an obsequious manner is grounds for imprisonment. Maybe you'll get lucky and the gendarmes won't throw you in the cell with the rapist. On the very same day of the Court's ruling, liberal Senator Hillary Clinton made a comment mirroring the draconian attitude toward civil rights manifested by the conservative Justices. While advocating gun control at an outdoor news conference, Clinton was heckled by a man wielding a megaphone. His main comment was "Hillary...you've got to be kidding." While I find heckling to be rude, this man did not espouse violence or incite to riot. It is the prerogative (some say the duty) of citizens to publicly confront elected officials whenever possible. Clinton, however, felt that the heckler's attitude was more a problem than his message. As the protester walked away, Clinton and other lawmakers were discussing their false assertion that felons frequently acquire firearms at gun shows. In reference to the demonstrator, Clinton was recorded saying "that's a perfect example of what we're talking about." Excuse me? The man was not violent. He was not a felon. He was armed only with thoughts and a megaphone. Why did Clinton feel he was a threat that should be shut down? That's easy. This fellow's crime was that he disagreed with the great and powerful Oz. He publicly expressed a contrary opinion. It's a shame the Supreme Court hadn't rendered their decision one day earlier. Hillary could have had the guy dragged off in chains, ostensibly for disturbing the peace but in reality for not cringing, cowering and licking her jackboots. That conservative judges and liberal senators regard the unwashed masses with disdain is not our biggest problem. The question we should be asking ourselves is "how and when did we allow the bureaucrats and bean counters to take over, and can we reverse the course?" We should be asking why it's any of the government's business whether or not we wear seat belts. The same query could be raised in regard to drug use, abortion and a thousand other topics. The answer to "why" is simple. Control. They seek complete control. I'm not personally a big fan of drug use or abortion, but neither do I believe the government should be involved - pro or con - in ANY form of social engineering. Give government the power to control one aspect of your life, and you give them carte blanche to control all aspects. The sword cuts both ways. Freedom entails not only making your own decisions, but (unless they effect you PERSONALLY) tolerating and/or ignoring the decisions of others. Relinquishing a portion of your decision making ability is tantamount to relinquishing your decision making ability entirely. You can't be a little bit pregnant. It's an all or nothing game. And so it goes. Give the bean counters an inch and they'll take a planet. They'll take your income, your possessions and your freedom to make your own choices, your own mistakes, and your own victories. The only thing they can't take is your individualism and liberty. You already gave that away. Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum http://freedomlaw.com promotes "action that raises the cost of State violence for its perpetrators ... lay(ing) the basis for institutional change." [Noam Chomsky] Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library http://drtavel.com/ Not a high-tech law firm brochure, "because a lawyer is only as smart as you make him" [Max Katz] and "the Law . . . should be accessible to every man and at all times." [Franz Kafka] For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, JD NEW: SUBSCRIBE TO Lis-LEAF the Learning Electronically About Freedom mailing service at http://freedomlaw.com/FORM.html Community email addresses: Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shortcut URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lis-LEAF Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> <FONT COLOR="#000099">ClubMom is the first free organization dedicated to rewarding and celebrating Moms! Join today - it's free - and get your chance to win in our $5,000 Family Vacation Sweepstakes! </FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Cb4mCA/TFaCAA/tvCFAA/xrOVlB/TM";><B>Click Here!</B></A> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> Please let us stay on topic and be civil. To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs -Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org OM Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
