It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When Are Local Law Enforcement Going to Start Demanding to See Sealed Warrants?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Who cares whether this is new or not? I am asking a simple question, and now already I am being accused of some other motive.


What I am saying simply is that at this time I cannot trust that my county sheriff or local police, or anyone else for this matter, to present any kind of buffer zone, or last line of defense, between the feds and me. I can't trust they will protect me from the feds if the feds decide that because of my posts on ATS, for example, I am labeled as a terrorist- and am to be rounded up for indefinite detention under FISA laws or the Patriot Act, or whatever.

But this doesn't just apply to me. It applies to every single one of you, too. You can't trust your local law enforcement to do this for you either. So the question remains:

When Are Local Law Enforcement Going to Start Demanding to See Sealed Federal Warrants?



I agree. A sealed warrant means the simply have something to hide.

If the local cops had some balls...




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I totally agree that local law enforcement should be the first to face the feds, but too often there exists a relationship based on federal funding and in that regard, I can see why perhaps some would so easily comply while others would no doubt ask to see the warrants and demand to know what was going on and why and who was being targeted.

The States and local law enforcement are indeed the last line of defense and to see the Feds using sealed warrants implies a new trend and a desire not have any coverage of what and why they are there. This is part of the new transparency that we were promised.

Good read. I totally agree, because as we have seen from some separate States, there is a move to have federal employee and agents leave the specific jurisdiction of the States if the feds are intent on enforcing unconstitutional federal mandates or laws which have become law under circumstances which the States see as an infringement of State Sovereignty.

Local Law enforcement has a role in local communities and to find out how they stand on similar issues would be something good to know before the Feds come in mass and begin setting up operations to take down some Militant Christians with tanks, helicopters, tanks, and a multitude of armed enforcers.

Asking to see the sealed warrants is just the thing that needs to be pursued because it is the duty of local representatives to protect the State that gives them the authority to enforce the laws.

Thanks for the posting.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
A sealed warrant could contain anything, but most likely it contains nothing, lacks specificity, and anything could be added after the fact to fit a justification for the search or seizure. Secrecy of any sort is something to be distrusted by the prudent.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Well, apparently the indictment against the militia group that was arrested has been "unsealed" and published:

www.annarbor.com...

If they were targeting local law enforcement like this, they were barking up the wrong tree.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Is an indictment the same as a warrant?

I will do a little quick google search.

From here-FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(a) Issuance. Upon the request of the attorney for the government the court shall issue a warrant for each defendant named in an information supported by a showing of probable cause under oath as is required by Rule 4(a) , or in an indictment. Upon the request of the attorney for the government a summons instead of a warrant shall issue. If no request is made, the court may issue either a warrant or a summons in its discretion. More than one warrant or summons may issue for the same defendant. The clerk shall deliver the warrant or summons to the marshal or other person authorized by law to execute or serve it. If a defendant fails to appear in response to the summons, a warrant shall issue. When a defendant arrested with a warrant or given a summons appears initially before a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall proceed in accordance with the applicable subdivisions of Rule 5.



(1) Warrant. The form of the warrant shall be as provided in Rule 4(c)(1) except that it shall be signed by the clerk, it shall describe the offense charged in the indictment or information and it shall command that the defendant be arrested and brought before the nearest available magistrate judge. The amount of bail may be fixed by the court and endorsed on the warrant.



From here-FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE



(b) Probable cause. The finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or in part.




(1) Warrant. The warrant shall be signed by the magistrate judge and shall contain the name of the defendant or, if the defendant's name is unknown, any name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty. It shall describe the offense charged in the complaint. It shall command that the defendant be arrested and brought before the nearest available magistrate judge.


So now, hearsay is probable cause? Hey, anyone I do not like, I can just anonymously call the cops and they can get a warrant?

When the hell did that happen?

This could all be fabricated by anyone.

Yes, we are free society.

So, they have handed down an indictment.

Here is a legal definition of indictment-INDICTMENT



A formal accusation of a felony, issued by a grand jury after considering evidence presented by a prosecutor. The formal charge issued by a grand jury stating that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial; it is used primarily for felonies.


So there is a difference between an indictment and a warrant. So, this has to be the warrant not an indictment, unless they paneled a grand jury already which is impossible.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


It says at the top:

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT...

So apparently there was a Grand Jury convened on this, who reviewed the evidence, and then a sealed warrant was issued, which was served by the sheriff/DHS/FBI/JTTF. And no doubt they brought in all that firepower because they were serving the warrant on an armed militia group.

What trips me out though that they are now calling home made bombs WMD's!

WTF. WMD's to me are nuclear weapons.

[edit on Mon Mar 29th 2010 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Doc Velocity had a legal definition of WMD's on one of his threads.

It can be pretty much anything that is a IED type component.

Landmines are WMD's.

So, they had a grand jury set up. This is really meant to start it I think. If they had a grand jury set up, how many more sealed warrants do they have?

Also, they need to give the evidence provided.

On militia radio, they are going over the muslim connection and the hearsay crap. I am still thinking this is something bigger than meets the eye.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
1st charge If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

2nd charge Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.— A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction—
against any person or property within the United States, and
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(B) such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(C) any perpetrator travels in or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense; or
(D) the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;

3rd charge (2) Prohibition.— It shall be unlawful for any person—
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

4th charge (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
(B) If the firearm possessed by a person convicted of a violation of this subsection—
(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or
(ii) is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years.
(C) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, the person shall—
(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years; and
(ii) if the firearm involved is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(i) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this subsection; and
(ii) no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during which the firearm was used, carried, or possessed.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


So, they had a grand jury set up. This is really meant to start it I think. If they had a grand jury set up, how many more sealed warrants do they have?

Also, they need to give the evidence provided.

On militia radio, they are going over the muslim connection and the hearsay crap. I am still thinking this is something bigger than meets the eye.


If there was a grand jury, were the accused allowed to defend themselves? It's nuts.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Sealed warrants are obtained by lawyers (DA's / city attorneys / fed prosecutors), or investigating officers / agents who argue disclosure of the warrants information could somehow jeopardize the case.

One issued the warrant is issued, sealed or not, it belongs to the investigating agency only... and they rarely share "OSJ" (outside jurisdiction)... especially the feds, they are infamous for working cases inside police / sheriffs jurisdiction and not notifying the locals.

The feds are prima donnas who see themselves as the police of the police, and as superior intellectual law enforcers.. street cops who wrestle with drunks and chase stolen cars are low level grunts, untrustworthy. Keep in mind also feds do often investigate police / sheriffs depts and have been known to treat local sworn as 'suspects'.. not special enough to be included.

There is no tangible brotherhood bond between local sworn and the feds, feds work their cases unbeknown to local PD / Sheriffs... until they need the locals assistance. Even then it's usually in support of the feds operation, more for a display of "local color of authority". Feds can bring in their own air, comm, SWAT.. and not need anything from local cops other than traffic control.

The bottom line: even if the local cops asked to see a sealed warrant, the feds can, right or wrong, claim jurisdictional authority and refuse.

Also anyone who has been a cop for awhile has been involved in dozens of warrants.. after awhile it just doesn't matter what this one or that one is about.. it's just another warrant. Sometimes you just don't want or care to know, if they ask you to direct traffic.. do it, get it done and go back on patrol until shift ends.. so you can go home, sleep and start over again the next day.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Totally true man. I woke up this mourning and after these events it seems like a dirrfent world. Lets get a few things straight...

While I am not right wing in the slightest but militia's are legal.
They are the last bastion of freedom for citizens of this country.

Unless they have evidence of a joint plan for war on the government set up, what was there crime?

First time sealed warrants have been used en masse on us citizens under terrorism charges when no crime was commited.

Yes ladies and gentelmen a monumental line has been crossed. Unless they produce evidence anyone that can be viewed as a threat can be arrested, demonized, and held indefinitely on terror charges welcome to the NWO...AGAIN..LOL



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Department of Justice Press Release

detroit.fbi.gov...

Excerpt (there is more at link):


U.S. Attorney McQuade said, “Because the Hutaree had planned a covert reconnaissance operation for April which had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk, the safety of the public and of the law enforcement community demanded intervention at this time."

Andrew Arena, FBI Special Agent in Charge, said, "This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society. The FBI takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States. The FBI would like to thank our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners who are member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, for their assistance in this case."

As of this morning, eight of the nine defendants are in custody and seven of them will be making their initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer at 10 a.m. Joshua Stone is currently a fugitive. Any person with information as to the whereabouts of this individual should contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation at (313) 965-2323.

The charge of seditious conspiracy carries a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction carries a statutory maximum penalty of life in prison, Teaching the use of explosives materials carriers a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence carries a mandatory minium penalty of at least five years in prison.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case was investigated by special agents of the FBI and the Michigan State Police.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Lots of good useful information here.

I have a question though...

The foreigners entering prior to Sep. 11, 01;

If the Feds knew about them, as it is well known those terrorists had tails all the while leading up to that fateful day, why no grand jury indictment against those individuals? Who are the feds really gunning for? Why?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by loveguy
Lots of good useful information here.

I have a question though...

The foreigners entering prior to Sep. 11, 01;

If the Feds knew about them, as it is well known those terrorists had tails all the while leading up to that fateful day, why no grand jury indictment against those individuals? Who are the feds really gunning for? Why?

excellent point
but I think u already know the answer
which makes it a rhetorical question, lol
but a very valid point



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


This is a very important topic. Our founding fathers knew that to much power allocated or allotted to a "central" (IE Washington DC) was dangerous.

This is the sole reason we not only have States, but local community governments (parishes, counties)

The best legislation is made by and enforced by those that live the closest to it.

The fall of the Republic has already begun -- and don't think for one second that the PTB aren't on board, navigating it's destruction by design.

They *want* a civil war -- they *want* a military coup de ta

Not fighting back is not an option -- becoming involved is suicide.

Do you not see the position this government has placed upon us -- it's people? We are paralyzed! Doing nothing means total enslavement...by acting we ensure our arrests and jail time.

It will happen -- and it's simply sad to see it.

"All of this has happend before, and will happen again" - Battlestar Galactica

Students of history will see the resonances to the USA and the Roman Empire.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join