Sunday, October 31, 2004
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Bill O'Reilly allegedly slams the media, including bloggers like Constant
Kind of like accusing someone of talking too loudly about a misdeed.
Bill O'Reilly wasn't just famous in the United States, but worldwide including [at Red arrows] the Caribbean and Thailand.
O'Reilly slammed the media for making him into "an object of scorn from coast to coast" and said his main priority had been to protect his family from the "enormous pain" caused by the Mackris suit.RefWell, Bill if you hadn't filed your lawsuit that appeared on the Smoking Gun, your producer might not have countersued.
Thank goodness you did file first, otherwise we wouldn't be such good friends--Thanks for the quote, Bill. You made me famous: "Bill O'Reilly allegedly says dark forces will harm Al Franken". Ref.
Read more . . .
Friday, October 29, 2004
Officer retribution after civil complaint filed
Update: 27 Mar 2006
Here are other blogs discussing this outrageous attack on American civilians: [ Click ]
This is a link to the other McCloud case, $10M damages for outrageously forcing an American citizen to publicly strip, while the officers make unprofessional comments, making their behavior no different than the abusive American troops in 2006 or the British Monarchy who tormented the Colonists in 1775 [ Arnetta McCloud Click ] .
Shame on arrogant American law enforcement. The clear laws are insufficient to guide you to civil behavior. You are barbarians. May your comrades fighting an illegal war in Iraq suffer more hardship and discomfort because of you disrespect you show to your fellow Americans in the Continental United States. You are dogs.
There is no reason to treat American civilians in a manner that you treat those who you abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. You mock those you supposedly are fighting for and protecting. May you lawfully have the laws that you ignore -- be ignored and may you lawfully suffer the at the hands of the court that should show you no compassion or respect.
You know better, but you continue to ignore your State Peace Officer Training. Did you Field Training Officers teach you to do this? Why should anyone believe you when you make a claim before any court? You have no credibility. You ignore the standards. You bring discredit upon your profession.
Your oath to your profession obviously means nothing; why should we believe your oath to the Constitution means anything? Your state police officer standards and training should review your records. You should be disbanded; and forever barred from being a police officer anywhere in the world. Interpol should get your name and watch you closely as does the NSA.
How many others have been tormented by you? You discredit yourselves. You waste the valuable time of attorneys. You should reconsider you commitment to your oath. America now knows you are dirt bags. We have your names. You shall forever be on the list of trash we throw into the waste heap of history: Go away.
Stop tormenting Americans with your silly games you learned at Guantanamo. Do you wish to have this abuse inflicted upon you when you are a prisoner at a camp where we send the officers who are bad people and decide to ignore laws?
Perhaps with our New Constitution we should make special camps to send bad officers who ignore the laws of our nation; and have them lawfully tormented in a manner that is degrading as that abuse they impose on others.
How dare you expect the "civil courts" to protect your from the abuse you inflict on others. You claim a defense of "the Constitution" to avoid unusual treatment and punishment; but you openly ignore that standard when it comes to mocking your fellow citizens. You have a double standard on when the rules related to civil society should or should not apply. You are scumbags. It is not wonder Americans are openly mocked: You are hypocrites. Do not speak of the "grand society" you bring to Iraq -- your notion of a "grand society" is to create a playground to abuse your American peers. They are well above you in their love of civil society, yet you treat them as you should be treated: Like a dog and mocked. You are utterly contemptible creatures.
You ignore the laws of civil society. There is not reason we should honor your authority; and no reason that any law you "enforce" should be taken seriously. You cannot command others to assent to your barbarity, then compel them to recognize your power. You have no lawful power. You have no lawful authority. Rather, you abuse your power and you authority with an attitude of "nobody will do anything" -- you show contempt for what is possible.
America now knows. And no the world knows. You are American swine, and you peers are the ones who conduct themselves in a similar manner in Iraq, destroying lives, and acting in an undisciplined manner.
But for a private attorney, there was no prospect you buffoonish "leaders" in Florida were going to do anything -- all the more reason why you did what you did: You have an open reputation for discrediting your profession, and there exist no meaningful sanctions. You leaders are useless. You work in a dishonorable profession.
Most of all: You are contemptible members of the JTTF who abuse power, and defy the law. The laws you ignore no longer need to be recognized by those who you defy and abuse -- namely, we need not recognize the delegation of power through the Constitution -- you ignore the Constitution.
The way forward is to write a new Constitution that prohibits this conduct explicitly; and makes it a crime -- not simply a civil matter. Obviously you have no regard for the Bill of Rights -- that document to which you took an oath. There is no reason anyone should care should you suffer harm. May your family suffer sleepless nights of dread, wondering if you are going to return home; may you be sent to Iraq and tormented by those who have no respect for American dogs such as yourself.
You are not better than the British Red Coats. That would be a complement. Rather, you are simple what you are: Americans – the lowest of all creatures on the totem pole of civilized society, sitting in the cess pool of morality, the fine liquid soup you know well – towhich you toast and pay homage.
Dare to look at the Constitution – that document to which you defy. It is your master. And you show no respect for your highest authority. Why should we show you any respect?
We only do it because we respect ourselves and the law far more than you are capable of comprehending. May you suffer long nights of grief contemplating what you have done; and know that the world can see how the American dogs continue to treat their American peers as if they were in Guantanamo. How dare you!
Cess pool American dogs!
The information below is a different case, but the arrogance is just as awful.
Case #04-80984, in re Ref: Beware the K9 and DEA.
Mr. McCloud and his attorney Guy Rubin filed an action to release public records regarding the illegal search. The Jefferson County Sheriff refused. "The day after we requested a court hearing on the records' release, deputies were sent to Mr. McCloud's home in Delray Beach," said Rubin. "This was total retribution and good ole boy intimidation." Mr. McCloud was cuffed in the middle of the night, and then whisked to North Florida without any notice. Prosecutors and Sheriff's attorneys then attempted to coerce a release of all civil liability for civil rights violations in exchange for dropping the criminal charges. Mr. McCloud would not take the deal, but prosecutors dropped the charges anyway.Ref
Read more . . .
Fax about Vietnam Traced to Hawaii ... or is it Lubbock?
Gaining traction Ref Ref
Fax: Ref -- Fax number at the top is readable.
You be the judge: Is it 806 or 808
FAX: 808 742 0498: Koloa, HI.
FAX: 806 742 0498 -- Texas Tech, Lubbock, Tx
Interesting that the fax number, if it is 806, goes to a voice-line in Texas -- meaning they have a combined fax-voice line; strange -- anyone confirmed independently with the phone company in Lubbock [or via RanchHC@TTU.edu] that their phone line is both fax and voice compatible? [ie: That the fax-number of the document is bonafide]
Recall, that this number is for a "heritage center" where documents are supposedly stored and retained. Seems strange that a research-archive center would advertise it's phone number to the public that also has fax; the probability of an out-going fax "blocking incoming calls" seems to be high, raising the question: Why advertize the very line which someone inside the building would fax a document out.
Ref Ref Ref
Read more . . .
JTTF Calling Card quotes Nietzsche, Hitler's idol
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster Ref
Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man. Ref
JTTF likes to use the quote as a reminder, but recall the FBI-agent visits to the Holocaust Memorials did nothing to discourage them from practicing new CIFA techniques in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan.
The reminders do not sink in, but inspire denial.
Read more . . .
White House blocking website access to foreigners
They don't want the foreign media to file reports that are readible to Americans on the internet.
But what else could the foreign media learn that the White House doesn't want American to know: Staged attacks on their own RNC offices?
Ref: Possilbe Explanations:
Are there any legal restrictions on using the American Flag on websites?
Are there bans on websites being changed and updated x-days prior to an election?
Are there prohibitions against using military personnel in political ads or websites?
How many people have had their websites jammed?
Is content being altered and adjusted by IT-hackers on websites, e-mail, and blogs to confuse, interfere, disrupt the messages being sent by anti-RNC?
Read more . . .
Stanley Hilton alleges 9-11 was rehearsed, Bush well aware of plan
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Profiling: Why are the consequences for officer misconduct so low?
To be clear, the officers had no basis for their actions, regardless the race of the target-Plaintiff, Terrill Johnson of Denver, Colorado.
The question becomes: Why are officers so willing to engage in this abuse of power; although they are later "settling" [indicating they know they did wrong, despite the "no statement" on wrongdoing], it is ridiculous that people have to be subjected to this kind of treatment.
What new, meaningful consequences are there to ensure that officers do not lie, make up bogus charges, and abuse the citizenry?
I'm not clear that the existing system of "oversight and sanctions" per POST is working.
Read more . . .
Patriot Act: The courts find it unconstitutional; yet no Congressmen come to its defense
Interesting how many poeple whine about the Patriot Act. But where were they when they could do something about it?
Why are the Federal Legislators unwilling to stand before any court and defend the Patriot Act?
It is because they know the act is not defendanble.
Name one who dares to defend this act, and you will find no one who has a spine worthy of defending the constitution.
Look far and wide, and ask yourselves, "Where are the great defenders of the nation's constitution?" They are not coming forward at this time the "Patriot" act is under attack.
In 2001 they stood before the world extolling the "great need" to embark on this voyage, this creative adventure called, "Destrying the constitution."
Yet, now, they are silent, unwilling to come before any court to defend their action, to defend what they have done, to defend their honor as "citizens" who passed this unconstitutional legislation.
They dare not take any action, for they know there is no defense for unconstitutional actions.
If they truly believed in what they were doing in 2001, let them parade themselves before the courts and defend this Patriot Act.
They are not going to defend the Act, as there is no defense.
Read more . . .
Cheney, Halliburton, and 18 USC §§ 434 -- meaningful remedies to apparent conflicts of interest?
Update [28 Oct 2004]: FBI investigation -- Ref
Allegation: Admissible evidence [a] Prior knowledge; [b] denial not supported; [c] e-mail confirming discussion between contractor and Vice President
inquiry's findings appear to undermine claims that he had no prior knowledge of the contract. .... In the midst of the din over the oilfields contract in September last year, Mr Cheney told NBC television that he had "absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of, in any way shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government". ...In a letter to Mr Cheney, the California democrat Henry Waxman, who has led the congressional investigation, said the circumstances "appear to contradict your assertions . . . [Waxman aslo] asked for clarification on an email that recently surfaced from Stephen Browning, of the Corps of Engineers, to Mr Feith on March 5 2003, which said the contract "has been coordinated with VP's [vice-president's] office". RefSanctions on Halliburton are possible
364 U.S. 520: Contracts formed on the basis of a lobbyist are not enforceable, can be rescinded.
Why aren't the Halliburton contracts [because of the Vice President's special position and continued reception of ongoing financial benefits (deferred salary, contingent upon profits ref)] simply found null and void, and have all payments stopped?
Further, principals on the "Cheney Energy Commission" need to be identified, per "18 USC §§ 434", to determine whether anyone improperly influenced the decision-making:
(2) Persons who may not be contacted. - The persons referred to in paragraph (1) with respect to appearances or communications by a person in a position described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) are -At this point, we do not know which private contractors were in attendance, or what government officials in attendance, if any, were in "receipt" of anything.
(A) any officer or employee of any department or agency in which such person served in such position within a period of 1 year before such person's service or employment with the United States Government terminated, and
(B) any person appointed to a position in the executive branch which is listed in section 5312, 5313, 5314, 5315, or 5316 of title 5.
Yet, "despite all that we don't know," we hear many excuses to do nothing--that does not inspire confidence in either government or in how contracts are awarded.
Exception: EO 11222 revoked.
Read more . . .
Monday, October 25, 2004
Geneva Conventions also waived for non-Iraqi prisoners in Iraq
The torture widespread. On the hands of the "liberators." In a surprising development, DoJ, DoD and CIA attorneys have admitted the scope of the plan to remove prisoners out of Iraq. Despite clear provisions within the Geneva Convention prohibiting such moves, the Administration used legal gymnastics to justify doing what was once denied.Ref Ref
Still, a Justice Department official said separately, "No matter what the provision is in the Geneva Convention, they are subject to legal interpretation." Ref RefThis in stark contrast to the legal community which opined caution:
Because denial of POW status entails potentially serious consequences for combatants, such determinations must strictly comply with the dictates of the Third Convention. In this regard, Article 5 of that treaty creates a presumption that a captured combatant is a POW unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on an individual basis.RefDanger of failed checks and balances
Quick marches to war, and speedy rubber-stamping Congressional bills do little to inspire the checks and balances are working. We've seen the results of failed oversight and secretive government in re Guantanamo:
a small group of people could create an entirely new judicial process - without many of the due-process guarantees we expect - and think it could survive real challenges.'' ,a href="a small group of people could create an entirely new judicial process - without many of the due-process guarantees we expect - and think it could survive real challenges.''RefIndeed, despite the law, these people within DoJ and the Pentagon skirted the law and sought to redefine what constitute "acceptable behavior," despite the standards in our founding documents.
There is no telling what other abuses, misconduct, and schemes have been hatched in the bowels of DoJ and the Pentagon. These officers and attorneys in the nation's government, when called to serve, clearly chose their institutional objectives of that of the constitution, Geneva Convention, or our founding principles.
These officers have shown that, in the vacuum of poor leadership and ineffective oversight, that they will push the law, and destroy the lives of those they dare accuse. Such are the acts of tyrants, to which the nation took up arms in 1776.
US disregard for POW rights and international law comes with great alarm for the US Latin American community, which raised concerns over this treatment when opposing HR 10, the bill to deny aliens the right to trial in deportations. Ref ref
More troubling, is that the same legal interpretations when applied to HR 10, the bill that would deport immigrants without judicial review, could effectively "justify" the same misconduct on US soil. Ref
In the wake of 9-11, such unconstitutional options were actively discussed; although though to have been rejected, it now appears these options not only are "back on the table," but are about to be codified in HR 10.
Mr. Yoo listed an inventory of possible operations: shooting down a civilian airliner hijacked by terrorists; setting up military checkpoints inside an American city; employing surveillance methods more sophisticated than those available to law enforcement; or using military forces "to raid or attack dwellings where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire."Iraqi abuses
Mr. Yoo noted that those actions could raise constitutional issues, but said that in the face of devastating terrorist attacks, "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties." If the president decided the threat justified deploying the military inside the country, he wrote, then "we think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection." Ref
The Administration's conduct shows the importance of declaring war against a specific enemy: To ensure that Prisoners once detained, are treated with respect, not so terribly treated that once they are released they re-enter the fight more determined.
Prisoners who would normally be granted protections under the Geneva Convention, were transferred out of Iraq, and the memo applied to anyone in Iraq, not just AlQueda. The Administration kept personnel off the Red Cross Lists so they could move prisoners freely without detection. Ref
The abuses overseas should give pause to those contemplating speedy action without adequate judicial review. HR-10 is designed to expedite visa revocation and can permit the same abuses. Yet such a possibility was only recently scoffed off as mere speculation:
Of course, the exclusion of any person, innocent or not, would be controversial, even if there were judicial review.RefIn light of the legal hair splitting in re Iraqi prisoners and the Geneva Convention, this Administration, when asked to implement HR 10, can be reasonably be expected to selectively twist the language to justify a broader application of the law, and the forcibly removal of anyone to a undisclosed location, merely on the basis of an allegation; this imminent prospect is contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights which applies to all, regardless their citizenship.
What comes as a surprise is the language of the justification--closely matching the current language before the Conference Committee, HR 10>:
C.I.A. could nevertheless permanently remove persons deemed to be "illegal aliens" under "local immigration law." RefHR 10 Details
Yet two of the contentions portions of the Bill include SEC. 3006. EXPEDITED REMOVAL, and SEC. 3008. REVOCATION OF VISAS AND OTHER TRAVEL DOCUMENTATION, which bar judicial review:
`There shall be no means of administrative or judicial review of a revocation under this subsection, and no court or other person otherwise shall have jurisdiction to consider any claim challenging the validity of such a revocation.'.RefACLU raised concerns early this month, but the Bill is now before the Conference Committee, with Republicans eager to pass the bill. Ref.
Must broader waivers "justified"
The White House memo was originally much narrowly characterized as narrowly applied to AlQueda, was broadened to include anyone:
In a secret order dated Feb. 7, 2002, President Bush declared, as Hersh puts it, that ''when it came to Al Qaeda the Geneva Conventions were applicable only at his discretion.'RefGonzalez memo: Ref. Retired General downplayed the apparent transfer of memo from Guantanamo, to Afghanistan, and finally Iraq.
superintendent of Guantánamo, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, traveled to Iraq to teach the command there the new interrogation arts. To the surprise of the Administration, the war was not going well, and the military command was hungry for intelligence from the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. A memo had gone out from a captain in intelligence stating, "The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding these detainees. Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken." RefWhat we knew two months ago has no come full circle: The lessons of Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan have now arrived on America's shores.
This administration has already shown how far they will go regardless the law or international treaties to justify "whatever they want," without so much of a peep from the American Bar Association. Ref It took the ABA three years to speak out against Guantanamo abuses. More troubling, despite the Federal Court finding that the secret searches were unconstitutional, DoJ is set to appeal.
Based on the misrepresentations before the US Supreme Court just prior to the release of the Abu Ghraib photos, we can only wonder what legal absurdity DoJ attorneys may proffer.
Where's the true advocate of the Bill of Rights; and why do we require widespread, pervasive abuses to occur before a cursory investigation is done? We already know on the basis of the abuses in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan that the same mindset is giving full support to more abuses under HR 10.
It is unfortunate that many have to suffer before the leaders are adequately checked and sanctioned. The wrong team is at the controls of this train. It remains to be seen whether this conductor is voted out of office, or impeached. Ref
Read more . . .
Bids for O'Reilly tapes starting -- $6M settlement offer apparently rejected after asking Mackris bathe in the pile of cash
Search warrant data accuracy: Case study -- FBI-target John Rosatti address incorrectly scanned
Search warrant errors can be a problem for you.
Sample error: Wrong IP number on warrant -- A. J. Nuckols, VA family abused, interrogated at gunpoint.
There is a known risk law enforcement will go the wrong address when using electronically-scanned information as the source for issuing search warrants. Unfortunately, the courts are seldom pursuaded to provide relief under the Federal Tort Claim Act.
When errors are known but not fixed, they do not fall into the realm of "reasonable error," but form the foundation for a 42 USC 1983 claim.
This is a known error and the courts and counsel should be reminded to have the officers double check the information on the address of the warrant to ensure that the agents are going to the correct address.
The error with electronic transcript is not new. Let's go through an example of how the wrong address can be placed on a search warrant.
John Rosatti's contributions to the Bush-Cheney campaign have an interesting typographical "challenge." Ref, from the Smoking Gun Article Title, "Mafia Soldiers Support Bush-Cheney" Ref Quoting from the Smoking Gun:
two Colombo family soldiers have spoken with their bulging wallets--and they want four more years for the Bush/Cheney ticket. The below Federal Election Commission records show that convicted felons John Staluppi and John Rosatti last year each gave the GOP candidates $2000 ref
Notice the name of the organization as it is printed on the top: Bush-Cheney D4, not 04, but D, like "Dog." RefRef
Looking at the Address by the arrow, 227D Wilsee Ref yields a result that fails to fall within the Range on Mapquest, 2200-2499.
Is it a typographical error in that 227Dd should be 2270? Strange that "D" [middle finger, left hand on typewriter] would be transposed with a number [top row of keyboard]
In other words, if Mapquest is accurate, and if the address on the FEC filing is 227D, we fail to understand where on the map we might find 227, as the street as identified on the FEC form runs only from 2200 to 2499.
Where is 227D?
Is the filing an error?
Is MapQuest in error?
Is the street actually longer, and the MapQuest is outdated?
Do recipients of campaign contributions have an obligation to ensure that the information provided on the form is accurate?
It doesn't seem likely that Mr Rosatti would go to the trouble of correctly filing a report with the FEC, with an incorrect address; tellingly, the name of the organization has the same apparent transcription error between the number ZERO and the letter D, like "DOG."
The only explanation is that the FEC form has been scanned electronically, and the transcription mis-identified a ZERO as the letter D, like "DOG".
What significance this has in the large scheme of things is unclear. But what is interesting is that the form on the Smoking Gun website does not appear to be a direct copy, but an electronic scan. Whether the electronic scan-transcription was made prior to or after Smoking Gun got the document we have no idea.
But in the large scheme, we wonder, "How many other scanning errors are there" in the FEC-related documents, and if there are errors, what method is there to validated the flings; and does the apparent scanning error make it difficult to achieve the objectives of the FEC: Providing correct, reliable, useful information to the public on the actual origin of funds.
We remain skeptical the data is 100% accurate, or that outsiders have run into a problem. It remains to be seen whether the type of scanning errors are significant in that the public is unable to correctly identify the true origin of funds; or to what extent this error is known and worked around; or whether data-errors are simply ignored and thrown into the "we have no evidence to question the information" [because the information cannot be 100% verified.]
It would be interesting to see what the percentage-error is in the FEC database; and whether management is aware of the problem; and to what extent, despite the error, personnel running the FEC contractor-oversight continue to award high marks [to the companies performing the work transcribing data] despite the error rate in data-transcription-scanning.
More broadly we have yet to understand to what extent the transcribing-errors are also used by the FBI in the language translation efforts; or to what extent the "backlog of translation efforts" is being "solved" by using software that has an error rate. It remains to be seen whether a simply typographical error proves to be significant.
Remember, it was the "confusion" of the "pounds" vs "newtons" in the NASA Mars lander software that led to the apparent failure. Although it may see like a "no big deal," when warrants are issued they have to be on the correct address; but if there are "reasonable errors, and despite being at the wrong address law enforcement stumbles across something," you could very will find yourself at the end of the JTTF-gun.
Some errors are acceptable to the government when they let law enforcement assert the "right of intrusion" where they would otherwise be forbidden from treading. This was the very scenario the public rebuked when it endorsed the US Constitution.
Now that you've looked at the details, consider how closely others really look:
The two men, John Staluppi and John Rosatti, each gave $2,000 to Bush-Cheney '04.
Notice, going by the form, the "correct" version is "Bush-Cheney D4, Inc.". Mind your p'x and q'x.
Read more . . .
Sunday, October 24, 2004
CIA IG Report: Bad news for a CEO who wants his employment contract signed before the audit committee sees the truth
The CIA Inspector General's report sits in the White House. Awaiting the election.
Bush by delaying release of the CIA IG report shows how CEO's act when they are in trouble. By hiding the audit report from the stockholders and audit committee, this CEO hopes to get his employment contract signed before the truth is known.
What's in the report is not as important as what is done to a CEO who refuses to let the audit committee report to the board and stockholders what is really going on.
Bush-as-CEO has one goal: To secure a compensation package, regardless the finding of the audit committee. Yet, Bush argues "I will only release what is in the report after you approve what is in the compensation package."
Bush bargains from a weak position, incorrectly believing the board of directors would rather obtain the report than discipline the unresponsive CEO.
Ideally, the board has the right to know what is in the audit report before making their decision. However, the board of directors doesn't need to know what is in the report for them to make an adverse decision.
Uncooperative CEOs, when they have much to hide, need not be given any consideration or favors during negotiations. With this CEO, the "terms of the contract" are not contingent upon Bush's cooperation; rather, those terms are already outlined in the Constitution.
Congress has the power under the Constitution to subpoena the President. There is no "Executive Priviledge" in the Constitution or immunity from oversight. This CEO only wants a signed contract regardless the facts. This CEO deserves nothing--once signed, all leverage over the CEO is lost.
Bush knows this. He plans to provide the report "if only" the voters will let him finish his job. This is why he promises to reveal it "maybe later." We've seen what "show me later" means with Iraq's WMD: Never.
Bush is part of the problem. Not the solution. There is a large mess to clean up. He needs to be shown the door. If the report is not forthcoming, treat Bush as any CEO in the same position would be treated: Immediately fired.
The CIA IG report may not see the light of day before the election. The truth needs to be known: There is no evidence to justify renewing his compensation package.
The CEO, in the end, loses when there is a question of integrity. The stockholders lose when they fail to act.
Read more . . .
US Monitoring US Citizens based on religious backgrounds
That's right, if you're non-Muslim, you can call up the police and complain about those who are hanging around your place of worship.
Why does the US cry when Iraelis are monitored by the PLO; but the US goes out of its way to monitor its own citizens who are Muslim?
Mind you, the "Muslim threat" isn't some rogue force that suddenly appears out of nowhere -- these people traveled on valid US passports, were accepted through customs, and then let into the United States.
Suddenly, the US [after waiving them through customs] suddenly has questions. Of their own citizens. Why asking later; unable/unwilling to ask those questions during the entry-interviews, but do have time later.
And to think all this time we were told by the CIA "what nasty things" the KGB was doing to Jews in Russia.
What excuse will the Protestants, Caltholics, or druids have to fend off government oversight; but not come to the aid of Muslims who are subjected to the same intrusion?
Why, if you are Catholic or Jewish a 'Strange presence' in the parking lot is reported with confidence aid will come; but the same confidence is not there when Muslims are asking auestions about similarly "unexplained individuals" lingering around the parking lot?
Read more . . .
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Iraq: Don't wait for apologies, vote!
Ref Alot of poeple were publicly accused of nasty things in 2003 in re the Iraq War. Well, the facts have come out, there's no evidence of WMD, yet no substantive apologies.
Why expect accountability -- why not -- this administratin holds the public accountable for the administration's failures prior to 9-11; it's time the public turn the tables.
Read more . . .
Rumors they think they know where someone might be
Part-time Judges: Too much time traveling, not enough time studying caselaw
Web hoax, scam, or actually "falsely accusing someone of copyright infringement"?
Apparently, to conduct a "test," some assert information on the internet is "infringement of copyright" and sending out demand letters alleging infringement.
Allegedly an educational firm is publishing the information as a purpose of a test. However, it is not a game to make such accusations, per 17 USC 512.
We await to hear whether [a] the parties consult counsel, engage in discovery, and this test-accusation-practice is put to a halt; or [b] whether this turns out to be an elaborate web hoax.
Some have represented that a firm is sending out notices alleging copyright infringement; allegedly they know the material is not protected, and accused have removed the contents from the site after receiving a demand letter Ref, in re Ref
Ref In July and November 2003, 3 researchers from the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies conducted a small experiment with notice and takedown, to see if the different legal regime made any difference in practice. They found a very appropriate article from the famous philospher/economist John Stuart Mill, OnLiberty, dating from 1869. They published a part of the second chapter, about freedom of speech, on a homepage in the USA and a homepage in the UK, with a clear indication that the text dates from 1869 and belongs to the public domain. Then they sent a fake complaint to the 2 major ISPs, on behalf of the (nonexistent) John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, using a free and anonymous Hotmail address.
We picked 3 free dial-up ISPs (Freeler, Tiscali and Wanadoo), 3 paid access providers (Demon, Planet Internet and XS4ALL), 3 hosting providers (iFast,Ladot/Active 24 and Yourhosting) and 1 cable internet provider (UPC/Chello).  A text was uploaded from the famous author Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker), dating from 1871. The text is about democracy, and begins with the story of the sheep. The sheep chase away a tyrant, only to find themselves in need of specialists to represent them, and they end up inviting the tyrant back, disguised as 'Specialist'. The text clearly states in the opening line that the work dates from 1871, and was reprinted in 1981. At the bottom of the text there is a line stating 'this works belongs to the public domain', right after the final conclusion from Multatuli: 'It is certain that _my_ goddess, Reason, is not satisfied with such childish and criminal tricks'.[appendix 1]
First the customer was invented, and given the name 'Johan de Ruyter'. When Multatuli published his most famous work in 1860, Max Havelaar, exposing the abuse of free labour in the Dutch Indies, he was cheated out of his copyrights by his first publisher, Johan de Ruyter. Only years after the first publication, Multatuli was able to regain his copyrights, and publish a revised edition. In 3 cases, we were unable to create the fictive character Johan de Ruyter, and used the real identity of Mr. B. de Kler. 
Secondly, a fake society was created to act as copyright holder, the E.D. Dekkers society. Representing this society was a 'legal advisor', Mr. Johan Droogleever. His name alludes to a very respectable legal firm in the Netherlands, representing the State. A few weeks after the text were brought online, Mr. Droogleever started to send complaints to the providers from his Hotmail account.
The letter says:Ref
E.D. Dekkers society
To whom it concerns,
I am writing to you as the legal representative of the E.D. Dekkers society. The society owns the copyright of all the published works of E.D. Dekkers. I hereby notify you that you are hosting material (published via a so-called home-page) which infringes on our copyrights.
The address of the website is
Under the European E-Commerce directive you as a hosting provider are liable for unlawful content if you don't act immediately after you have been notified of this
fact. I trust you will take all necessary measures upon receipt of this notification to end this and all future infringements of our intellectual property rights.
Thank you for your courtesy and anticipated co-operation,
Mr. J. Droogleever
(legal advisor E.D. Dekkers society)
There remains a cause for action for knowingly providing false and material misrepresentations on copyright infringement. Constant in re CNN: Ref: There is a cause for action for knowingly making a material misrepresentation about infringement.
Misrepresentation of Copyright Infringement: 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) Ref
A party is liable if it "knowingly" and "materially" misrepresents that copyright infringement has occurred. "Knowingly" means that a party actually knew, should have known if it acted with reasonable care or diligence, or would have had no substantial doubt had it been acting in good faith, that it was making misrepresentations. RefRemedies
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. RefDemand
It would be appropriate, that if these allegations are true, and firms and educational institutions are sending out demand letters with full knowledge that there is no basis for a claim, that this conduct cease and desist.
On the other hand, if the conduct is not occurring, but the allegations continue that apparently groundless accusations have been made but are, in fact, non-existent, we have yet to understand why there is no cause for action brought against those who are making such allegations.
In the absense of a defamation claim against those individuals alleging there has been a course of conduct apparently in violation of statute, then we are left to conclude that, in the absence of any effort to remedy the apparent wrong, that either [a] this entire situation is a hoax; or [b] if the parties did engage in the test and are real, then allegations against the educational institution have merit and there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged violations of Title 17 have occurred.
There are several problems with the alleged letters. First, there is limited exposure of the event.
Although the situation was reportedly first published in 2003, we find little coverage of the study on either the wider internet, or in the archive. This suggests the information was actually only recently posted. Tending to favor this suspicion and raising concerns is that the site in the Netherlands has no discernible hit-history. Ref
Also of concern are the apparent requests for donations to an institution that allegedly has been around since 2002. Let us consider this for the moment.
If the parties have actually engaged in a "test," and sent out alleged e-mail to targets, and have apparently violated Title 17 of the US Code, what they are doing is apparently asking the world to sanction conduct that appears to contradict US Statute.
Bluntly, we have not basis to know whether the alleged individuals who reportedly conduct this test are real. This account number should be easy to trace. here is the list of people. Recall the SEC's bogus website.
Traceroute takes us into the Netherlands. However, there is a potential problem. Notice the creation date for the web account is Jan 2002; but there is a prior listing on the log of 2001, suggesting that there has been a transfer from one owner to another.
Updated Date: 19-oct-2004B. Site Activation Date
We await an analysis of the "real" people involved, and whether they are actually educational representatives.
The 5087994548 Number goes to: Ref: Sept 2003
Reported Product: Declude JunkMail $249 to $895
Reported Description of reported "product": Software that supports both public spam detection and internal spam detection procedures; features multihop scanning capability, country of origin detection based on IP address, a weighting system to identify legitimate email messages, settings you can customize by user, Habeas support, and 12 actions to take against spam
Why would the website-owner that specializes in website-cloaking change its IP address in August 2004; why not keep it the same "cloaked number"?
3-Aug-2004 126.96.36.199 Rackmy.com
11-Jul-2003 188.8.131.52 ViaWest Internet Services
1-Mar-2002 184.108.40.206 ViaWest Internet Services
16-Mar-2001 220.127.116.11 Net Infrastructure
Notice that the IP address changed from 216 to 63.
Address: 415 N 10th Street
Address: Suite 301
City: St. Louis
NetRange: 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124
NetType: Direct Allocation
OrgTechName: Palmer, Mike
Why would a firm that is so open about its bank account to receive funds go to the trouble of using a net-block to avoid detection of who actually owns, operates, and manages the site?
We have a bank account registered for the Netherlands, but your name is listed as the creator. Could you explain why there is a bank account apparently in the Netherlands for an organization whose website you created in the United States?
We've also had situations where software engineers have introduced software bugs and bogus material in the hopes of providing service and support to solve the problem of those they've allegedly infected the computer with the problem. Do you have any comments on this?
Reportedly, the tests took place in the Netherlands, outside the United States, and not subject to Title 17 constraints. Yet, the ISPs which control the informationn are addressed in the United States, implying that the governing law is not remotely unrelated to the United States. Could you comment?
Reportely, the tests were conducted in the Netherlands, yet all the promotional website information is only available in English. Could you comment on why a Danish-language firm would use English as its primary language in its website presentations, but the e-mails were allegedly sent in Danish. Ref: Lower right, page 4 of 7
Interstingly on the presentation, there are a number of names that are xxxx-out. If we zoom 600% into page 6 [upper left], we'll notice several names: PeterLangernkamp email@example.com -- even adjusting for spelling errors and including multiple iterations of spelling changes we find no referece to these names anywhere on the internet. One would think that a high profile even like this might actually have some bonafide names; however, if the names were bogus, why not reveal them? Bluntly, why do none of these names work out on a search? Ref
The actual words on the presentation in the letter are reported to be in Danish and sourced from the Netherlands. Yet, could you explain, if this is in fact the origin of the report, what the lanague results are if we back-translate these words using traditional English. In other words, if we take the "translated English" and put it into a traditional on-line web took could you comment on the similarlity between the translated Dutch-version of the text, and the actual words that appear on the presentation?
Ik aan schrijf u als wettelijke vertegenwoordiger van de E.D. maatschappij van Dekkers. De maatschappij bezit het auteursrecht van alle gepubliceerde werkzaamheden van E.D. Dekkers. Ik breng u op de hoogte hierbij dat u materiaal ontvangt (dat via een zogenaamde homepage wordt gepubliceerd) dat op onze auteursrechten overtreedt. Het adres van de website is Gebruik noch is de distributie van dit materiaal gemachtigd door de E.D. maatschappij van Dekkers. Vandaar moet ik besluiten dat deze publicatie een overtreding van de auteursrechten van de maatschappij vormt. In het kader van de Europese richtlijn van de Elektronische handel bent u als ontvangende leverancier onmiddellijk aansprakelijk voor onwettige inhoud als u handeling don't nadat u van dit feit op de hoogte bent gebracht. Ik vertrouw op u alle noodzakelijke maatregelen op ontvangstbewijs van dit bericht zult treffen om dit en alle toekomstige overtredingen van onze intellectuele-eigendomsrechten te beëindigen.REf: English to Dutch Translation.
Given the translation back from the alleged "original Dutch to English," we are especially struck how fluid the text appears to be in English. Could you comment on why Dutch-language would appear to flow so well; and who do you suppose actually translated the choppy text into the translated English -- was it a person, or was it an online translator?
Of Interest is the educational C.V. of the reported presenter; yet we find no academic credentials. Interestingly despite the "big event" we also find no press releases. Could you explain how a "big presentation" like this would only appear on Indymedia, and we find nothing else to suggest that the presentation is being promoted through other channels?
Of interest is the e-mail extention [zoomed to 600%] indicating a @yourhosting.nl; Ref. What is most interesting about this alleged E-mail address is that it is reportedly in the netherlands; yet why would an e-mail address in the Netherlands use "yourhosting" when there is no match for this e-mail and name combination except one, on another discussion about the site, but no other public e-mail reference/use by the alleged Langenkamp?
Andere bedrijven kondigen ook maatregelen aan. Zo wil de grote webhoster YourHosting uit Zwolle voortaan eerst schriftelijk bewijzen zien of een klager is wie hij zegt. "Vanaf heden halen we alleen iets offline als de klager met goede bewijsvoering komt, vervolgens gaan we er met advocaten over praten en dan pas ondernemen we actie," aldus Peter Langenkamp van YourHosting. En bij Demon Internet moeten de klachten over websites naar aanleiding van het BoF-onderzoekje voortaan eerst langs de bedrijfsjurist, zo laat woordvoerder Sanjai Bissumbhar weten.Ref
Which, translated into English means:
Other companies announce also measures. This way the large for the wants see YourHosting from zwolle as of now firstly in writing proofs if a complainant whom he says, is. "as from present we thus obtain only something offline if the complainant with good argument comes, then we will talk with lawyers and then just we undertake action," peter alley camp of YourHosting. And at demon Internet the complaints concerning Internet sites must as a result of BoF-onderzoekje as of now firstly along the company lawyer, thus spokesman lets know Sanjai Bissumbhar. Ref
Potential Plaintiff found
Do you know: Ref this man:
Dhr. Peter Langenkamp
We are not saying that this individual actually sent the e-mail; but perhaps someone failed to let him know that they were going to use his name in this demonstration. Are we saying that a "real Langenkamp" exists, but doesn't know that someone was contacted using his name, making allegations that others had incorrectly posted information that was not actually copyright able?
Let's pause and consider the potential defamation suit Mr Langenkamp might have if it is shown that his name was inappropriately used by a "high profile corporation" sending out what they admit are bogus claims of copyright infringement.
Issue: Geographic separation between reported activities and principals
It is noteworthy that the alleged educational institution in the Netherlands has limited public discussion, and their website is apparently registered in the United States. Further, public release of bank account numbers raises some interesting questions, especially in cases where the IP address has been listed after the original date.
Issue: Lack of identifiable victims who have brought civil actions per Title 17
If this is an education institution, it is likely the above demand letters and study are simply a "test within a hoax" to evaluate whether the public is able to discern valid IP-removal requests. It remains to be seen whether a civil action is brought against the alleged educational institution. Again, this could very well be a "hoax within a bogus-test".
However, such demand letters require the careful review by competent counsel, amounting to significant and substantial financial costs and expense which are unfounded. We have yet to understand why the United States continues to laugh at such "educational research efforts," when the institutions are apparently violating Title 17.
It is serious business to engage in copyright violations. However, there is also a greater damage done when the public is subjected to false and materially misleading statements presented in the form of demand letters, regardless the educational objectives.
At this juncture, we have yet to understand whether the alleged "victims" of this test are, in fact, real. It is all well and good to find an alleged group of people who are conducting this test; however, we have yet to hear of any formal complaints against the organization for issuing these bogus demand letters, per Title 17.
Given we have yet to understand the actual identities of the alleged victims of this hoax, it is possible that the entire "test" has been fabricated in the hopes of attracting attention, and getting the public to provide funds.
Issue: Unclear who created the pamphlets; whether funds have been transferred; or whether the receiving agency primarily responsible for the account has misrepresented the ultimate purpose, objective, and use of funds
We have no direct knowledge that any crime has been committed, or that anyone in Massachusetts has made any false and materially misleading statements. Indeed, to make such a baseless accusation at this juncture would be irresponsible.
Although we might assume without direct evidence ["oh, no"] that the test was both real and actually conducted and sanctioned by an educational institution, we remain concerned that the issue has not been adequately discussed in the blogs as a possible hoax.
Perhaps the web community could identify real people who have conducted this "test", created the "pamphlets" and the relationship between the bank account and Mr Scott.
Proceed with caution. Ref
Read more . . .
Voting machines as a proxy for evaluating effectiveness of municipality procurement in re homeland security
There's some talk that municipalities in the wake of 2000 rushed to buy voting equipment without adequate consultation with experts. This suggests that when faced with an emergency [however that is defined] money, not careful analysis, is the deciding vote.
Yet, we are asked to believe that because homeland security is shortchanged, that municipalities are doing the right thing in finding alternatives. Ref
It remains to be explained why local municapilities give a green light to narcotics investigations, while dismissing local complaints; or why simple street stops bring in the drug dogs as back-ups.
Yes, Virginia, we do have a problem with funding. We also have a problem with cops becoming drug dealers because "writing speeding tickets" isn't profitable enough to cover the budget shortfalls.
Read more . . .
CIA Suppressed report -- no accountability, 9/11 families outraged, met with Goss
The more they talk, the more evidence we have that they're not doing anything but talking.
Amazing how slowly government will respond to holding someone accountable for 3,000 deaths; but the media will suspend two reporters for attending a concert. Ref
By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.
In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.
Read more . . .
Friday, October 22, 2004
Draft vs women in combat: The challenge of finding 850 troops
This raises more questions about military mannng levels.
The US, rather than relying on its own troops asked the UK for 850 troops. US women are actively fighting and already dying in Iraqi combat operations. Ref Ref
Case study: The challenge of finding 850 troops
850 UK troops to be moved, not very many. Ask yourself, "Why can't the US come up with ONLY 850 troops?
The answer: The US doesn't have 850 spare troops to do the job. 850 troops is only a single battalion.
In order to sustain simple "police actions" in Iraq, the United States has to go through major efforts to free up what is not a large number, but a sizeable number relative to Alabama.
Active reserves are feeling the pinch
Another sign is, despite the need for troops, the Army is still rotating troops out of Iraq back to Germany, then recycling them back, not to Iraq, but to Afghanistan.
Although the rest of his battalion is standing down to go to Germany, he is on alert to go directly to Afghanistan. RefThe Army has exhausted the state-side sources of troops, has insufficient numbers of ready personnel, and the number of ready personnel to do the job is far less than requirements.
The Army does not have enough time to train the troops, but requirements are piling up faster than the Army can fill them from existing sources.
Women in combat
The fact that the US has to ask the UK for "only" 850 troops indicates that the United States has to make a decision: "Will they put women in combat before starting a draft?" Ref
"Unless we want to draft men, we have to take women. We have to have an all-volunteer service or go back to the draft. That's the trade-off." Ref
In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DODs policy of not using women in combat. Ref
However, it is telling that the Selective Service does not require women to register. The Selective Service in 2003 only floated proposals to expand registration to women.
The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft . . . The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq [in 2003] . . . RefIf current voluntary enlistments open up combat to women, it remains to be understood why there such a move would not be matched by a mirror-requirement that women register. If women were to be included in combat [which no decision has been made], then we would also have a serious discussion about having women register; some argue it does not seem palatable to have any childbearing-sex to be drafted into combat. Ref
Available troops, time to train
Two issues are time to train, and the minimum numbers relate to the projected enemy strength. Transferring 850 UK troops shows two things: Requirements already exceeded the available numbers; and the requirements are clearly rising more steeply than "the ability-speed to train reserve forces."
The inability to find 850 troops confirms: Even if the Army transfers units from the United States, there remains insufficient time to train troops, either male or female. Far more likely is to have non-combat males transferred within the US Army, yet they still need to be trained.
Yet, given women combat soldiers are already fighting and dying in Iraq, it may ultimately not be an "either-or", but both: "Now that we [a] require additional personnel, and [b] have exhausted the female and male-support pool worldwide, when are we going to draft men?"
Thus, it appears the "women in combat" issue is more likely related to an "attention getter" of how close we are to running out of non-draft sources of personnel. Ref, Ref
Either way, there's a present challenge of quickly finding only 850 troops for combat, regardless the numbers available worldwide. Ref
Meanwhile the insurgency continues to grow -- you've been warned.
Read more . . .
Domestic Surveillance: What you need to know about what is going on, and what you can do
There are things you can do to preserve your rights.
This is the basis to assert that the issues in the ACLU complaint warrant increased public attention. Ref Ref.
What you can do: Read, prepare, and stay alert. Only you can ultimately protect your own rights.
Communicate lawfully to the media, public officials, and your friends and in no uncertain terms that the matters the ACLU-NC complaint relate to:
- unlawful search and seizure;
- failures to take complaints;
- willfully violating, not complying with, statutes requiring state auditors to take information;
- local officials to file investigation reports with their appointing officials in accordance with statutes.
Information obtained through intelligence databases clearly indicates that non-criminal information is routinely stored and used during subsequent "interviews." When inputting data related to associates, work history, room mates, private use of time one invariably makes religious-related entries into the intelligence files.
DoJ, despite requirements under Brady, to disclose all pertinent information to defense counsel, has failed to provide a straight story on why the FBI I-files were so long in use, but no one bothered to notify the US Attorney of the failure to provide all data per Brady.
Law enforcement regularly lies all the time to create the illusion of a constitutional stop, when in fact, the basis for the stop is merely pre-textual. In those cases where officers engage in a non-constitutional stop, FTO's teach new recruits in the field how to make up stories to justify the stop to meet the loose "reasonable suspicion standard" under Terry.
Threat Management Unit personnel have policies and instructions to government personnel to use as necessary allegations of "suspicious activity" in order to remove personnel who are making reasonable requests for assistance, but the office staffing is not willing to provide this assistance.
Despite clear policies that indicate the requirement to provide this standard, and clearly promulgated management policies outlining management expectations on employees, employees know they can provide misleading information to the public in the hopes that the public relies on this information and invariably fits the "suspicious person" profile, thereby justifying their removal, detention, and interrogation as retribution for engaging in constitutionally protected activities.
Despite the existence of intelligence files and data related to complaints, this information is not effectively used to manage employees. Indeed, despite complaints about law enforcement, management is unable to do data sampling, trend analysis, or effectively communicate with civilian oversight the status of investigations.
Rather, civilian oversight will promise to look into matters, but outside observations cannot confirm the existence of such investigations. Moreover, despite clearly promulgated statutes mandating filing investigation reports with appointing officials, civilian oversight of managers is weak, cursory.
First line civilian management fails to demonstrate that they effectively monitor, investigate, or provide facts to oversight; nor do they effectively disseminate findings to mid level law enforcement management in the wake of an investigation.
In those cases where identifying information is stored, retained for tracking purposes, this information is not effectively used to do data sampling or ensure the public is adequately served relative to the management goals. Rather, management relies on "feedback by abrasion" which typically involves substantive complaints or lawsuits, and does not effectively solicit feedback from those who have no interest to complain.
In short, because the pool of complaints tends to be from a group of people who have adverse relations with law enforcement, civilian oversight tends to bias the analysis in terms of "skewing the results in favor of law enforcement" and deferring back to law enforcement, rather than taking an objective, impartial look.
Management also fails to ensure that the original complaint or concerns prompting the first contact with law enforcement are adequately solved or addressed. Indeed, the goal of law enforcement is not directly to appease the individual wishes of a particular victims, but to serve the law and justice. However, it is problematic when there is a disconnect between "what the public expect" and "what law enforcement actually does."
Management does not effectively demonstrate that it independently does no notice sampling on complaints to ensure the original concern was adequately resolved, or that the information law enforcement provides to the public is correct, consistent with policies, or supports civilian-oversight objectives.
It is reasonable for management to be challenged to do sampling of cases to ensure, in fact, that the original call to law enforcement is satisfactorily addressed in terms of customer service, post-sentencing results, and final disposition of the victims relative to their status immediately prior to the incident.
We also find problems in cases where state auditors and the attorney general have inputs into the oversight process. State attorney generals have not adequately shown that they provide reliable information to the public on "whether issues are local or state-level." It is troubling when clearly promulgated statues identify an AG-role, but receptionists defer the public to local officials [not state] on the basis that "the state statutes do not apply" when, in fact, they do.
In those cases where first line government staff discover they are the object of a civilian complaint it is normal for government officials to side with their own, and turn the basis of the concern back onto the public-victim. In cases where the public has concerns about law enforcement conduct and there is a clearly promulgated rule outlining management responsibility to act as first-line public interface, it is troubling that requests for assistance are rebuffed with, "We are not going to second guess the officer."
When pressed, rather than being able to demonstrate factual evidence justifying the existence of an investigation [as required by the rules, statutes, or guidelines], we are troubled that multiple requests for information fail to reveal any evidence of there having been any substantive investigation into the matter, issue, complaint, trend, or concern.
This comes at a time when despite public states that government is "for the people" and "We are here to help" or "checks and balances is important," the various branches of government are designed to achieve the opposite.
Despite speeches celebrating public input, there is no formal complaint system nor a formal focal point to identify trends and ensure they are timely resolved; nor is there a meaningful feedback loop to ensure in cases where civilians are rebuffed and not adequately served that there is a clearly identified person who can inject themselves into the issue to validate the requirements, procedures, facts, and what was done.
More often than not, despite a clear statutory requirement to investigate, take information, or take action, the public is more likely to be rebuffed, given a non-sense story, or sent on a maze. Invariably, the fact that the civilian is subsequently disoriented and "not doing what is expected" becomes yet another "justification" to identify this person to security as a "suspicious person."
What is of concern is when newly assigned personnel are brought into the issues, yet have no experience or understanding of the basic rules, statues, procedures or rules. We wonder on what basis these personnel are hired, how rigorous the entrance interview was, and whether the job announcement truly had any meaningful hurdles to surmount. The objective of job interview is to hire qualified candidates, not create the illusion of a hurdle where a rubber stamp exists.
Of concern is the regular habit of law enforcement to "feel out the victim-witness" to calibrate 'what story would most likely convince the person they have no case," when, in fact, the public always has the right to make a complaint. It is troubling that despite their oath of office to serve the public, law enforcement will not communicate in a manner that reflects well on them, but is designed more to intimidate and dissuade public awareness and comments on issues related to discipline, procedural compliance, adequacy of management, or training effectiveness.
Despite POST oversight, we see little evidence that POST internal controls conducts no notice visits on Field Training Officers [FTOs], or adequately ensures field training practices are consistent with lesson plans on file. It is of concern when FTOs provide new recruits the "excuses to avoid a 42 USC 1983 claim" checklist; and instruct the new hires how to dissuade a victim-complaint using incorrect statements on the statutes.
It is not uncommon for law enforcement to use intimidation against the public not because the public is doing anything wrong, but because civilians are familiar with the statutes. In those cases where personnel with legal backgrounds have gone undercover, it is striking how law enforcement will quickly trip themselves up not knowing the "deranged, rambling complainer" is actually a highly educated, trained and degreed accomplice that is not only miked but being recorded for purposes of gathering evidence.
The public has learned that in order to preserve its rights, it must know the laws better than law enforcement; and must also know the statutes, rules, and policies better than civilian management. This is not simply a sign of a leadership problem, but more broadly we ask, "We have these people in positions of power when they have to be reminded by those they are supposed to work?"
Indeed, this rhetorical question is curtly answered with, "That's the nature of checks and balances." Yet, we are not persuaded.
For in those cases where the "knowing public" actually attempts to engage in constitutionally-protected activities of "public inquiry", that line of questioning becomes the basis to assert, "You are wasting our time" and "there is no problem" and "they are doing their job." Strange, we find nothing in the record to substantiate these defenses.
Public oversight is warranted, more so, because conduct and practices are at odds with public statements raising reasonable doubts about compliance within government with clearly promulgated statutes.
In short, regardless the approach used, we find that across the spectrum law enforcement will engage in misconduct, abuse, and routinely misstate the statutes in order to rebuff complaints, protect their own careers and "do what they have to" advance their own interests over that of the public. Succinctly, law enforcement looks at the public, as the Americans look at Iraqis, as the enemy.
This state of affairs is unacceptable.
It would be appropriate if there were more meaningful POST no notice visits to local law enforcement FTOs, and better demonstrations that the original complaints are effectively resolved. Unfortunately, the courts have given a green light to law enforcement in their deceptions to "gather information," and this invariably has provided the public with a jaded interaction with law enforcement.
The public is held to a different standard, required to provide truthful statements; in those cases where the public seeks silence, they are not unknown to be accused of being "in trouble with the law" or being "threatened with detention and handcuffing" for exercising their rights to silence. We see relevant comparisons between the British Monrarchy in 1776 and the US law enforcement tactics in 2004.
Strikingly, law enforcement during budget reviews is quick to bemoan the "lack of resources", yet we find this argument not compelling. Law enforcement is not unknown to trump up charges; having those case struck down, law enforcement is actually making more work for itself. By spending a large amount of time and energy on "big cases that fail," the public learns to "not bother" to provide information that is of real intelligence value related to criminal activity.
At this juncture it is clear that law enforcement intelligence gathering has more to do with "justifying budgets" and "giving agents something to do" than actually brining about meaningful convictions. Please, we see little evidence the interrogations in Guantanamo have yielded much but deaths and greater open hostility toward the United States.
What law enforcement ultimately does with the information is not in doubt: This information is not used primarily for criminal investigations, but is used to simply build up databases, for the basis for additional inquiry, and intimidate the public.
Despite the catalyst of 9-11, DoJ shows little capability in effectively managing or transcribing the existing information; why they need more information to similarly not be adequately managed or investigated remains reasonably dubious.
It is striking how difficult it is to get information into the law enforcement files; but once there is used freely to intimidate the witness or victim; bluntly, law enforcement will rebuff a complaint from a victim, and turn the proximity to that victim into a another "interview" to gather additional intelligence not about any criminal activity, but just "gossip" that will go into the intelligence file. This practice tends to dissuade the public to report crimes, and contributes to the climate of "criminals can do what they want."
The solution is to start with law enforcement, ensure there are meaningful sanctions for abuses, not excuses; we grow tired of the voluminous excuses law enforcement is permitted to wield as if a barrier that no civilian could hope to use in a criminal trial.
We are puzzled by the well known practice within the courts of permitting trumped up charges to appear before counsel, prosecutors, and the ultimate adjudicator, but there are few and far between any meaningful sanctions placed on law enforcement for trumped up charges. Units with a known veracity problem have complaints returned, but the intelligence-gleaned is not filtered or purged.
Indeed, rather than take a complaint, law enforcement is more likely to use a "consensual encounter" with the victims, witness, information, or public as another excuse to follow-up on previously gathered intelligence; yet, it is striking that there are no formal complaints or documentation of these interviews in the incident files.
Regardless how the information is stored, it is a surprise to some to find that their "request for assistance" has turned into another excuse for law enforcement to engage in another fishing expedition. Again, the objective is not to pursue a specific criminal complaint, but merely to continue digging into a convenient target. Apparently, their POST-training was not adequate and they require additional "practice sessions".
Law enforcement likes to bemoan the scarce resources, but has a tough time arguing this point. Invariably, the problem isn't resources or personnel, but management of that information. It is troubling that information contained in the FBI I-files remains unsearchable; offers to provide additional information to substantiate allegations related to criminal activity are rebuffed with accusations of "don't come here looking for gainful employment." So much for FBI public relations.
FBI agents have the ability to freely conduct interviews and follow-up research on other cases. Invariably a case will dead-end, get put on the backburner, but agents are still capable of going over these dormant cases.
Although nothing stops the FBI to re-engage once the trail warms, the US Attorney and SACs are not on the same sheet of music. It is striking that in situations where the US attorney has litigated against law enforcement or judicial branch personnel, FBI rebuffs additional information related to these allegations and the US attorney defers back to the FBI on "what their priorities are."
The issue is DoJ has priorities that are clear, but neither the FBI or US Attorney are necessarily on the same page when it comes to oversight, priorities, investigations, information. On one hand we have the FBI I-files which surprised the US Attorney; and at the same time, the FBI will rebuff information that they are not aware the US Attorney is actively pursuing.
On top of this, the public is asked to provide additional information. The reasonable conclusion is that DoJ and law enforcement doesn't have a manning problem, it has a leadership, ethics, integrity, and training problem. The information is already there. The problem is that law enforcement will take on the character of those they prosecute in the "great cause of a greater good."
Rather than provide the requisite information to assess the management flaws in DoJ that Congress and auditors have clearly failed to remedy, DoJ's standard practice is to circle the wagons. Failure to respond to this FOIA reasonably confirms the suspicions that the allegations are true, as were the rumors about torture in Abu Ghraib.
The failure to timely respond to reasonable requests and oversight raises reasonable doubts in the public's mind about the ability of the government to comply with their freely chosen professional standards and constitutional constraints. The Bill of Rights are a shield the public must be encouraged to wield, not a spear which DoJ yields without warning.
Law enforcement has shown its true colors. It is not reliable. Indeed, this is the reason the farmers injected into the constitution/bill of rights clear provisions for counsel to be present. Yet, in this day and age the request for assistance is then used by law enforcement to intimidate the civilian population with threats, innuendo, unprofessional treatment, and abuse: "Are you in trouble with the law," and "I'll cuff you and detain you" if you exercise your right to silence.
Again, this is a training issue. The public at large is looked at as the enemy, the potential pool of information, and law enforcement will use any method even torture as they did in Guantanamo, to get information however unreliable. Naturally, those who refuse to assent to this abuse are targeted for greater attention and emphasis.
We ask, where is POST, where is the FBI OPR, and why is the House and Senate Judiciary Committee not actively involved? We are troubled that on the very day that the 9-11 committee looked into the DOJ and FBI, Senator Hatch was not at the hearings or in DC; he was in Utah on April 12-13 2004 attending a promotional tour for the Patriot Act, statutes which the court subsequently struck down.
We are not surprised why DoJ and local law enforcement engages the "targets" as they do. They have meaningless oversight from the Senate Judiciary Staff, a staff that is so poorly disciplined that it inappropriately accesses the opposing party's private files. We await a timely explanation from Senator Hatch why we should believe his staff can credibly oversee DoJ despite these transgressions. Further, the Senate Staff's reluctance to look into allegations of misconduct by Sibel Edmonds equally raise substantive questions as to the adequacy of DoJ oversight.
DoJ and the FBI pride itself on sending their FBI agents at Quantico to the Holocaust Memorial as a reminder. Yet, why did this visit not act as a check on the abuses we have seen in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Clearly the "never forget" visits were forgotten.
FBI agents "selective memory problem" is not isolated to human rights standards, but to the MAOP and simple courtesies like taking complaints, information, and responding in a professional manner to requests to see identification. The public is told so often to "put with with tis abuse," that criminals can now masquerade as FBI or ICE team members without fear of adequate challenges.
What is needed is a better education of the public of "what to expect of their FBI agents" so that the public "when this conduct does not occur" will know that they might not be interacting with a bonafide agent. The purpose of warrants is to ensure that the courts are overseeing this person; the excuse of "we need to keep this secret" was struck down when the Patriot Act began to dissolve.
Also troubling are the intelligence sweeps made of protestors, held in confinement, threatened with being thrown in "Guantanamo on the Hudson" for simply walking down the road. It is not the first time the nation has gone to war and had protestors, yet each time it appears the legal community is "caught off guard" and "once again" the government has to be reminded of the clearly promulgated Bill of Rights which clearly establish protections.
clearly, the provisions and mechanisms in place are not working. The constitution is clear, but law enforcement requires greater oversight, more reminders despite 42 USC 1983, training, oversight, POST, OPR. This problem, if the public is asked to provide inputs, is not unique to this age; but rather than demonstrate leadership, we are troubled that additional lawsuits are the only mechanism to remedy this problem.
If this abuse and misconduct does not stop, it will simply continue. That is not acceptable.
There is a leadership problem within DoJ and local law enforcement. If the public has to "step in" to provide the answers, then local law enforcement has failed; the answer is not to ignore the complaints, but to address the credibility and integrity issues.
The constitution is clear, as are the standards, policies, training, lesson plans, POST guidelines, and basis for FBI reviews into misconduct.
The public can only rely on law enforcement so long before it simply says, "not going to bother with that hassle." The answer, in law enforcement's view, is to subject the civilian population to greater intrusions when the civilians choose to "not take part" and "opt out" of the information-providing game.
We've seen in Iraq how far the US will go when it wants something. The only thing stopping this FBI, DoJ, ICE, and local law enforcement is the constitution, courts, and civilian populations assertiveness in standing up for themselves.
Gone are the days when law enforcement might have been given the 'benefit of the doubt'. Law enforcement shows that it requires close oversight, a tight leash, and more credible sanctions for violations of clearly established rights.
In a nutshell, FBI intelligence activities are no different than the abuses we have seen under the Denver Spy files. Law enforcement will use any method to gather information, acquire contacts, and gain proximity to the target. At the same time, it will use any ruse and method, even abuse and torture, to gain that information regardless its probative value.
Testilying, lying in court under oath by law enforcement, is standard operating procedure. Intelligence is actively shared with the media when it suits DoJ's interests and this can be confirmed through discovery by examining the FBI fax machines that have preprogrammed lines to the media, the frequency of the faxes, and also testimony from former field agents.
ACLU would do well to identify the specific holes in it interests and identify the specific questions that it is having trouble filling. There are methods and sources outside DoJ control that can provide this information and support discovery. Specifically, it would be helpful if there were specific allegations, pattern of misconduct, or concerns that the public could be sensitive to, be on the look out for, and could provide timely inputs to ACLU and other organizations collecting information on the pattern of abuses.
There is no doubt that the tactics used are an effort to stir the part in the hopes of igniting a flame where there is no smoke. DoJ would do well if it would apply the same pressure it applies to the public on its own agents when conducting internal reviews, screening personnel, or fact checking agent explanations on "what happened" and "why is there this recurring problem."
We should not be surprised why the FBI, JTTF, and ICE are so intimidating: They have learned how to intimidate oversight, congress, POST, OPR, and the Inspector General in re Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. This victory is merely a green light for more abuse and non-sense faxes from the US Attorney's office. Yet, Virginia, the court did strike down significant portions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.
Why is the FBI conducting these interviews?
What is the purpose of asking the civilian population questions related to non-criminal activity?
Why is the FBI rebuffing questions related to allegations of criminal activity?
Why does DoJ and FBI refuse to assent to reasonable questions, while demanding the public immediately comply with requests for information?
Why does DoJ and the FBI treat public questions as "efforts to intimidate", yet DoJ, JTTF, FBI, and ICE use these methods as a frequent course of conduct?
Why should we believe DoJ is conducting its affairs above board?
Law enforcement lies all the time; why should we believe their responses DoJ provides to either Congress or the Courts?
Threat management unit personnel brief government workers to report anything suspicious, fully knowing that "public oversight" can be thwarted with allegations of "being suspicious."
What is the DoJ plan to ensure that asserting federally protected rights and engaging in innocent behavior is not used as a basis to question, detain, monitor, intrude, annoy, harass, threaten, accuse the civilian population?
What method will DoJ use to demonstrate that it respects the civilians' population's right to an attorney being present during questioning?
It is troubling that the the civilian population have to require DoJ to publish procedures demonstrating that it complies with the constitution. Yet, in this day an age, DoJ has the burden of proof.
How much information will be gathered?
What method will DoJ use to ensure that non-Muslims like Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh are adequately screened?
DoJ complains that it is in a "new era" and "new methods must be used." No, the constitution remains in place; and the reason DoJ has a problem is that DoJ has failed to reorganize, respond, or use the information it already has. It does little to inspire trust in DoJ when DoJ cannot manage the existing information it has, cannot transcribe all the tapes, but is intent on gathering more information that it has no plan to credibly organize, access, or use for prosecutions.
DoJ would have more credibility it it effectively disciplined its own agents and ensure they met the standards in the MAOP, before lecturing the public and telling the public "what they should do" and "how they should spend their time" or "what is, or is not, appropriate conduct."
It is striking that the "reasonableness threshold test" to generate a complaint would dare to include the "media interest" -- the very institution that failed us prior to 9-11 and Iraq: Where were the questions, were was the interest, and where was the demand that government address issues which former agents brought to the media's attention? No answer, just more non-sense.
DoJ and law enforcement "integrity" is not yet at rock bottom, as they have more ways to go before they truly hit bottom of their own cess pool. They have proven themselves incapable of self-management, unresponsive to reasonable concerns, and anti-thetical to the US Constitution. Yet, despite the post 9-11 outrage, DoJ magically escaped the reorganization efforts.
There are 300 million Americans. DoJ cannot expect to interrogate them all; yet, it is possible DoJ might build prisons to house all those who dare assert their right to silence.
What's needed is better oversight by Congress, a wake-up call for Orin Hatch in the terms of a reduced amount of oversight over Core DoJ functions, and a dissembling of DoJ into core units that are more effectively managed, overseen, and regulated. All this power under DHS and DoJ does little to inspire confidence in the nation of checks and balances.
In those cases where DoJ, ICE, JTTF, and the FBI deem it "appropriate" to interview, those agencies need to first provide clear evidence that their own agents are meeting that standard first: Provide explanations on how they use their time; who their associates are; why they are unresponsive; why they choose to engage in "protected" activities that are the "basis of suspicion" in others.
First demonstrate you can meet the standard you impose on others, and perhaps the civilian population might think about reciprocating.
DoJ, JTTF, and ICE: You have invited a vote of no confidence and you have made your own jobs harder by simply ignoring the fundamental principles outlined in the US Constitution. A civilian population can collectively invoke its right to silence, regardless the threatened detentions and abuse we have seen in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Many lied about 9-11, Iraq, and WMD -- you have exhausted any hope of reform and you are now on your own.
DoJ also likes to assert that "we can't disclose that as it will be a primer on how to engage in criminal activity." This is absurd, as the constitution, statutes, rules, and procedures are clearly established and the public is "presumed to know the law." Failing to provide this information ensures that the public "does not know why they are being detained" and can do nothing to either adjust their behavior, or challenge the accusations made.
The court has already found that secret trials in re Patriot Act are unconstitutional; so too is it reasonable to expect openness about the reasons for the questions so that the public might effectively oversee where DoJ, the inspector general, the courts, and Congress have fallen down in re oversight, accountability, and discipline.
Failure to ensure agents conduct themselves in a manner consistent with these professional standards is a green light for criminals to mimic "whatever standards they want" and pretend to be law enforcement. There should be clear signals to the public "whether they are dealing with a bonafide law enforcement officer."
Part of the checks and balances is to have valid warrants, credible showing of personal identification, and professional demeanor expected of government "professionals." When those standards are not met, they should be the reasonable basis for the public to suspect they are not dealing with a bonafide "professional" agent and alert law enforcement management that they have an imposter posing as a member of law enforcement.
Of concern is law enforcement sensitive information is shared with the media and non-government entities like corporations and private investigators. We are troubled that the law enforcement opens its databases to non-official uses by agents-turned-contractors who are using government resources to benefit their personal business interests. For example, despite denials that the information is leaked, later discovery shows information is used during data runs at Jet Blue.
We are also concerned that information gleaned is shared with non-government entities like the American Legion and Americanism Committee in the hopes of using members of these organizations to intimidate targets, or those who speak out against allegations of unlawful or criminal activity by US government agents, troops, and respresentatives both at home and abroad.
Of concern is private information can be accessed, obtained without adequate disclosure of information; and civilian oversight of these databases profess that they "have no responsibility"for that data security, despite the 1974 privacy act.
References in the complaint
at 4 US Attorney and FBI are not on the same page.
FBI MAOP, standards of conduct, is here. Unclear why protected activity is the basis for abuse, mistreatment, arrogance, or accusations based on engaging in protected activities.
para 11, FBI and law enforcement do engage in "selective" application of the rules, telling the public whatever they believe the public can be told to justify 'whatever the FBI and local law enforcement chooses to do or not do."
Para 15, 16 The issue is not simply the aggressive conduct in re targets, but also to those who dare provide information related to criminal activity. One one hand the FBI-DOJ-JTTF claims that this is a new era, yet the same abusive conduct continues despite the need for information.
Para 33: What you can do, because DoJ has not "detected" public interest in this issue, tell everyone you know that you are interested and have them fax DoJ Public Affairs, your local media, and local government to raise these issues:
- Why are local government civilian officials not better overseeing law enforcement;
- Why does the media not timely investigate complaints related to these matters; and
- Why are DoJ-JTTF-DHS-ICE personnel reticent to timely respond to public concerns about the conduct, operations, and efficiency of their operations?
Ref, Ref, Ref.
Read more . . .