So we all know that roving wiretaps are here, including on phones, cell phones, text messages, and more than likely Facebook and Gmail. And that means
that whatever you say to anyone is being watched, in direct violation of Fourth Amendment rights which state the following -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This means that law enforcement is not legally allowed to search and seize "persons, houses, papers and effects" without first
cause and then specifying
the exact person and place to be searched.
And here is the "Exclusion Rule."
The amendment is enforced by the exclusionary rule. Established by Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained through a
Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be
inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree"
unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.
U.S. Directs Agents to Cover Up Program Used to Investigate
"I think the American people, honestly, want security over freedom."
- Jake Tapper, CNN
"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are
phonying up investigations."
-Nancy Gertner, former Federal judge
I don't think you guys know how real this is. In addition to these sources, I have an aunt who is a defense attorney who said that it is common
practice for police to get information from sources they should not have access to, specifically naming illegal N.S.A. roving "wiretapping" and other
programs like it.
In addition to that source, a friend just admitted to me this.
A top-cop friend of mind admmitted at least this, when s small group of men where discussing this issue - After one dude had said, "But the local
police have no access to that NSA bs", then my police buddy started chuckling, as he said, "But we all have friends in the FBI, and they are always
very eager to help, you know."
Now, the only way to defend yourself in court against this kind of thing is to be able to hire a defense attorney and ask for discovery so that you
can then apply the exclusion rule - but I used a top defense attorney in a case against me for misdemeanor charges (you heard that right,
misdemeanor charges are being pursued by illegal wiretapping
) and the discovery was a complete lie.
I know the discovery was a lie, because the events described in the police report involving the search were not accurate, and the evidence reported in
the report was not accurate - there was evidence missing in the report, and evidence added - and in addition to that, the police said that their
recording devices were "out of batteries."
I do admit that I do not know for sure that this was part of the program.
But besides my personal anecdote - what I'm saying here is - any crime is now being illegally pursued by unconstitutional programs in full support of
The Obama Administration.
So here is a question: How many of you think that your rights are being violated right now? The range of crimes could be anything, by the way, and
could even stem from someone who personally doesn't like what you say -
Let's not forget that taking away free speech doesn't just stop religious people from speaking. It also stops atheists, gays, anyone from speaking who
someone doesn't like.
It is entirely possible that the Duck Dynasty issue was blown out of proportion in order to take attention away from people who were being
punished for free speech that was liberal based. Because the reality is that this loss of free speech is not limited to religious people, and it has
the potential to hurt liberals more.
We all know about the Duck Dynasty issue. But what I don't think we all know about is another case where a woman in Idaho was fired from her school
for having an "offensive" profile picture on Facebook.
Huffington Post Link
That's the picture. So as you can see, no one is safe. I have another question - if everyone is treated like a criminal even before they are tried,
even before there is reasonable cause, and in some cases, even when there is no reasonable cause - isn't that scary?
How can we trust anyone? Do we want to live in a society where everyone is terrified to trust anyone? Who really wants to live in this society to
begin with? I know there are a lot of liberals who are in support of violations of our constitutional rights at the moment, because Obama supports
them, and because they don't see the whole impact.
But this is an issue that has the potential to affect everyone, especially liberals.
edit on 23pmMon, 23 Dec 2013 19:29:36
-0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)