Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Thoughts About Bullying on the School Ground

There is a resurgence in the incidence of, or at least in discussions and public attention about, bullying in our society, and there are some things that can be done about the problem right off the bat [over and above dumping the bullies in a mine shaft!], but we need to see what might be causing it because we need to focus on a systemic cure.

It is important to realize that school-ground bullying is simply a microcosm of our national political policies, from the beginning right up until now, and so one cannot entirely fault street punks from picking up on and emulating that which our “leaders” teach and do on a regular basis.

Bullying, by definition, is the exercise of physical force and verbal intimidation by an obviously stronger person against an obviously weaker one.  Bullies do not take on people of their own size and power, because they know there is a high danger of them getting cold-cocked: they are, in a word, cowards.  But isn’t that characteristic of our national war philosophy?

We know the greatest evils against individuals and peoples, and the most wide-ranging genocides, in our lifetime have been, and are practiced, by the U.S.SR./Russia, and China.  But while we get belligerently self-righteous about the supposed menace of their puppets like North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, Cambodia, and we get belligerently self-righteous about the comparatively lesser outrages by the Taliban and Iraq and Iran and Grenada and Libya and Yugoslavia, and by people we dislike in Pakistan and Egypt and Somalia and Syria and elsewhere, we never invade, attack, or threaten Russia or China.  That is precisely the same as the schoolyard bully:  we pick on and prod and invade and attack and execute the little guys [killing innocent civilians as “collateral damage”!], but we dare not move against the big guys.

And there is something in the American psyche that perversely celebrates, or at least tolerates, the bully.  There was a recent criminal case locally in which a police detective absolutely, verbally brutalized the teenage suspect for hours, over and over accusing her of being a liar when she would not say what the cops wanted, screeching “Bullshit” at her, threatening her with lifetime incarceration if she did not say what they wanted, so she eventually was coerced thereby into saying what the brutish cops wanted.  And we were certain that the jury would recoil against the over-the-top bullying by the cops.  But they didn’t.  They genuflectingly gave the government what it wanted out of the trial, thereby exhibiting the same values for jury trial practices as Benedict Arnold did for military practices - the jurors were traitors.

And then it has been found that the majority of school bullies were/are abused at home.  They emulate their perverse parents, learning that threats and physical violence is a regular way of communication, since their parents communicate with them that way.  Just as spanking by parents teaches kids violence by example, so too bullying by parents.  We teach and learn by example.

So, if jurors allow and hence enable constabularial bullying, and if national foreign policy practices international military and diplomatic bullying, and if twisted parents practice bullying, and if some school teachers administrators practice bullying, then how are school punks supposed to understand that such is evil and uncivilized?

We need to examine ourselves and our views, and then we can begin to find a cure for bullying.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Garcinia Cambogia Scam

Don't get victimized by the scam being carried out by Garcinia Cambogia, an alleged natural weight-control "premium" you "win" for certain things you do or see or perform on the net.  I signed up for what sounded like a first supply for S&H [shipping and handling] of $4.95, with the rest to be ordered if I liked it.  What the fine print reads is that they will send it for the $4.95, and then if you keep it, you owe them about $85.00, and they will automatically send you more for $85.00, charging the same card!! 

This needs to be addressed by the local US Attorney - it is an utter internet fraud scam!!!!!  I can't seem to get it stopped [I told them two days ago to stop and just got a new shipment notice!!!], so I am cancelling my credit card, and going after them in damages. 

Beware S&H "deals": they "deal" from the bottom of the deck!

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Liberty Receives Another Blow from SCOTUS

In the new Fernandez v. California, SCOTUS ruled, by 6-3, that if a present cotenant refuses consent to enter the residence [which controls against contrary wishes of another cotenant], if the cops can figure a way to get the refusing person away, then his refusal evaporates for 4th Amendment purposes!  Huh?  Does his duty to make mortgage payments cease if he is taken away?  Then how does his other authority over his residence cease?

Here, after he refused them warrantless entry, the cops "removed" the refuser from his home, and then they had only the meek, mild cotenant to deal with, and she gave in and let them search.  Wow!  I wonder how much these so-called originalists study about the Framers' intents about government invasions of residences when they come up with this police power cockamamie garbage.

A nagging pivotal point needs addressing: "He does not contest the fact that the police had reasonable grounds for removing him from the apartment so that they could speak with Rojas, an apparent victim of domestic violence, outside of petitioner’s potentially intimidating presence. In fact, he does not even contest the existence of probable cause to place him under arrest. We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason."

This is where his criminal lawyer failed him - he should have contested the warrantless removal from the residence, because there is no DV exception to the warrant clause for residential searches/arrests!  Reaching in and dragging a person out of his residence or commanding him to leave the residence is tantamount to a Payton search and requires a warrant!

Attorneys should NOT forget to object to any warrantless incursions/extractions in this sort of situation.


I love Alito's comment that they won't "extend" Randolph to this situation! Uh, Liberty is not granted [nor extended] by SCOTUS - it inheres in us as a people and is the default position in this Republic, Mr. So-Called "Originalist."


A book that comes to mind here is I. Müller, Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich (D. Schneider trans. 1991 Harvard University Press).  I recommend all who think we have a court that protects us from a rampaging executive to read that - we are living in shades of '30's Germany, yet none dare voice it.  Then read R. Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: the Militarization of America's Police Forces (2014), and all will become clear.  Too clear for comfort.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Drunk Driving Cops; Jurors Need to Ponder the Downsides and Vote Accordingly

Just so people with badges don't get too self righteous in the presence of jurors, and so jurors and the public think cops are squeaky clean and different from us all when it comes to this political crime, and different from the people they arrest for drunk driving, it is important to realize that cops and others in power do it too.  Does that mean we should demonize the police?  Is that the reason for this comment?  NO.  Neither they nor others arrested for drunk driving should be demonized!

This comment is to remind all that people make mistakes, no matter who they are [Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all had DUI pasts!!!], and we need the system to be more understanding about things when the increasingly political subject of drunk driving is being put into the trial courts.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140125/PROMO/301260050/Franklin-Police-officers-who-chose-not-arrest-fellow-officer-will-face-internal-scrutiny

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20140210/NJNEWS/302100034/Parsippany-cop-arrested-alleged-DWI?nclick_check=1

http://www.kvoa.com/news/on-duty-uapd-officer-arrested-for-super-extreme-dui-after-crashing-into-wall/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/rcmp-officer-guilty-of-drunk-driving-awaits-sentencing-1.2532371

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5534673-74/police-lafferty-affidavit#axzz2t7kmfr62

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865596113/Officer-arrested-in-DUI-case-after-police-truck-with-4-children-rolls.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Lewis-Co-sheriffs-deputy-resigns-following-DUI-arrest-241406261.html

http://wreg.com/2014/01/17/off-duty-memphis-police-officer-arrested-for-dui/

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-dwi-smashup-article-1.1585013

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/crime-courts/2014-01-20/dui-charge-savannah-area-fire-chief
[Fire Chief]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/detroit-city-council-president-under-investigation-drunk-driving-possession-marijuana
[Detroit City council president!]

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/01/28/troy-cop-on-leave-after-arrest-for-drunk-driving/
[Detroit officer!]

http://wishtv.com/2014/02/12/bisard-expected-to-plead-guilty-in-second-drunk-driving-arrest/

http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/1/22/orlando_police_dui.html

And there are so many, many more examples/instances.

So, when jurors are given the task of deciding whether they shall find a person guilty of this political crime, which results in heavy penalties, loss of license, sometimes loss of jobs, loss of money, and convictions that can come back to haunt them for a long, long time, they should focus on the fact that all make mistakes, and people and their families should not be saddled with the heavy downsides of those mistakes for long periods.

Contrary to comments by judges and prosecutors, a jury that votes guilty is indeed the cause of the ensuing conviction - but for the vote of guilty, the person would not be convicted, the very definition of legal causation.

So jurors need to ponder whether they want to cause such grief to people, when the very people collecting the evidence and processing it are frequently the victims of the same sort of  demonization that the government seeks for the people on trial.

"But judges say we must vote guilty if...."  No judge in this Republic should ever say anyone MUST vote guilty for anything, regardless of the strength of the evidence.  Moreover, the Framers envisioned that the jury of citizens would be the protection against all of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches.  And they anticipated that jurors would nullify cases wherein they felt the justice of the matter did not support a conviction, regardless of the technical strength of the evidence.  When judges pretend jurors cannot nullify cases, they are merely revealing thereby why the jury was given the power to do just that - judges like executives and legislators have agendas which citizen jurors must resist, or we otherwise negate the Framers' intent regarding the role of the jury in this Republic, a Republic where sovereignty lies with the people, not with the government.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Weak DAs Seek Sanctions Against Lawyers they Fear

The article below seems to be a new tack on the part of DAs' offices, reporting effective attorneys to the State Bar. A very effective DUI lawyer in Santa Barbara was reported to the State Bar for conduct in the courtroom, conduct which results in an embarrassing number of acquittals in prosecutions of the political crime of drunk driving. The problem is that if they start throwing down those gauntlets, they will be hoist on their own Janus-faced petards, because I see reportable misconduct by DAs on a daily basis, but I have always thought it unseemly to rat them off, preferring simply to beat them at the courtroom game that is our calling. I know not the merits involved in this article, but I do know that the attorney under attack is one of the more gifted attorneys in his area, and he will stand stoutly with his client against the gusts of faction, and the gust by this particular DA's office really blows. If I start to pick up this gauntlet, there will be many openings in DAs' ranks!

Read and weep, because there is an unhealthy alliance between prosecutors, judges, and the State Bar in this state, and it must cease, lest "interests of justice" transmogrify into "interests of the power brokers," the definition of Fascism.

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/state_bar_suspends_santa_barbara_dui_attorney_darryl_genis/comments#disqus_thread

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Reuters is Right about some things on the Right

It's about time that the powers to be come to realize what those of us in the trenches have been saying for decades: the war on drugs is a farce and cannot be won because it's not a real war and because too many people [cops, judges attorneys, rehabs, prison administrators and employees, probation officers, etc.] profit from the supposed "fight," and warehousing people in prison for most things is often counter-productive [as well as a cultural problem, considering we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other country, yet loudly boast enlightenment to an increasingly disbelieving world].  This Reuters piece, somewhat about Christie, is right on, but decades late.  Then too, enlightenment late is better than none at all.

http://blogs.reuters.com/reihan-salam/2014/01/24/chris-christie-and-the-failed-war-on-drugs/

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Navarette Nonsense, or Were We Conceived in Power?

A case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today will go a long way in resolving the question of whether we have finally become a full-blown police state, or whether liberty has a chance of returning to the default status intended by the Framers.

In Navarette v. California, the question has been stated some places to be whether or not the police can stop a suspected drunk driver on an anonymous tip without the cops observing any suspicious or illegal driving conduct.  That is, really, can we elevate hunches to the status of reasonable suspicion if the subject matter is drunk driving, where there are already legions of exceptions to constitutional and statutory norms?  The irony here is that Navarette was not found to be a drunk driver.

The faceless finger-pointer claimed that he ran her off the road, so the cops just stopped someone driving what looked like the vehicle described, without observing any bad driving, and found marijuana!  They didn’t find a drunk driver, which is what all the hysterio-rhetoric is about, but instead a person possessing marijuana.  And that reveals the danger to us all from the government position in this litigation, doesn’t it?

California has advanced a truly revolutionary doctrine in constitutional discourse, however this revolution is not in the direction of liberty but of power.  They want to introduce into constitutional litigation the notion of a sliding scale of assessments, such that the more dangerous the crime, the less evidence necessary to support the liberty infringement to investigate that crime.  And, of course, drunk driving is sputtered to be of the most dangerous kind of all!  In addition to the stock hyperboles prefacing cases where drunk driving is the subject, the Chief Justice, distressed that cert. was denied in a previous, similar case [Virginia v. Harris], opined, in addition to other grotesque overstatements, “Drunk driving is always dangerous, as it is occurring.”

Really?  By “drunk driving” do you mean a person driving with .08% and above but competently, or a person weaving all over the road, crashing into things, due to actual impairment by alcohol?  If the latter, then the dictum is not wide of the mark, but if the former, the reactionary chief resembles a Salem Witch Trial magistrate.  And if the latter, there would not need to be the rule proposed here, because the offense would be manifest.

It is utterly false that .08% alone signals dangerousness – it actually only signals political decisions over the decades, which started here at .15% and went to .10% and then to .08% solely because of political lobbyists’ efforts, not because of forensic science truths [which, as we see from the recent and ominous Vangelder, are not welcome in California courts when they upset the establishment view, a la Galileo v. Pope Urban VII].

If the police are allowed to subjectively claim that they suspect they are on the trail of a drunk driver on lesser standards than any other crime, we can count on seeing many more drunk driving investigations which “coincidentally” lead to other than drunk driving crimes, as in Navarette.  But I thought subjective beliefs of the cops are irrelevant, in the wake of Scalia’s Whren observations?  Are we going to have yet another drunk driving exception now, an exception to the subjective belief rule?

You see, the vehicle [!] that is bringing this case is the subject of anonymous finger-pointers, but the rule being sought has to do with a lessening of the quantum of evidence necessary for a traffic stop, regardless of how it is conveyed, if the officer believes the offense involved is of a certain nature.  Technically, if the courts really understood the relevant doctrines, anonymous finger-pointers could not support a stop in court here anyway, because that is hearsay, which might be admissible for suppression motions in the federal sphere, but which is not admissible under some state standards, including California’s [properly understood].  Here, there must be real “evidence” at the hearing, which would preclude a cop testifying that someone told him x, y, and z, whether that someone is known or anonymous.  That clear rule, the one of true evidence for suppression motions, appears to have gone by the wayside in these discussions, further proving that we are only a “learned profession” in pretense, not in practice.

It has long been the law, and a necessary component of it, that the results of a liberty infringement do not justify the nature of its inception.  What is being proposed here is a perverse twist on that rule – that the nature of what the cops thought they would find in the stop does support the nature of the initial liberty infringement, even if that thinking turned out to be factually wrong.  That is a most dangerous notion indeed.

Anonymous finger-pointers might have many motives for snitching off people, probably the least of which is a genuine, objective concern for traffic safety.  The rule proposed by government here would invite mischief by every angry boyfriend, disaffected former spouse, furious employer or employee, cop who can’t get a search warrant, and various other self-regarding sorts manufacturing horror stories to wreak harassment on enemies.  Lessening constitutional standards to enable vengeful utilization of eager government powers to deprive people of liberty not shown to be justified by what is actually observed by government presses us ever closer to the abyss, into whose depths we are increasingly in danger of tumbling.  We peer into its yawning depths, and it increasingly sneers back at us.

We were “conceived in Liberty,” not in expansive power, and the Courts increasingly seek to abort the fruits of that conception.  Over my dead Bar Card!