Highway Robbery!!! Thieves!

No charges, but police can keep the cash

Jeff Wiehe - The Journal Gazette

Money in the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office’s state seizure fund has grown in recent years:

2004…$53,062

2005…$38,378

2006…$64,513

2007…$91,609

2008…$105,852

Going 62 in a 50-mph zone, a Jeep barreled west on a slippery, snow-covered Airport Expressway on Valentine’s Day and blew past an Allen County sheriff’s squad car.

One traffic stop later, two men inside the Jeep were outside being patted down by officers. They acted nervous, according to a police report. At one point they looked as if they wanted to fight; at another they looked as if they wanted to flee.

In the Jeep’s back seat, police found more than $26,000 in cash wrapped in a stocking cap.

Though officers held the two men for a short time in squad cars, they were eventually released without charges, save for the driver receiving a citation for driving with a suspended license.

And the money? The police kept it.

Having that much cash is not a crime, but police have the right to seize it if they suspect it has been used or procured through criminal means. Most of the money seized comes from drug cases and can then be used by various law enforcement agencies.

And at least one local agency, the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office, has taken a more aggressive approach in forfeiture cases, with the amount of money in its state seizure fund growing from more than $53,000 in 2004 to more than $105,000 in 2008, according to Allen County’s Chief Deputy Prosecutor Michael McAlexander.

“We’ve gotten a little more aggressive,” said McAlexander, citing better communication with police in how confiscations work locally. “We’ve created a better process.”

In the situation with the $26,000, police seized the money because the driver could not give an adequate reason for having that much money. First, the driver said it was to buy a car, according to the police report. Then, he said it came from working at various jobs. The passenger said he had no clue about the money.

Those factors allowed police to take the money.

“If it’s way, way over and above what a normal person will carry, and if things don’t add up (on how it was acquired), we take the money,” said Lt. Art Barile, head of the sheriff department’s vice and narcotics unit and the Allen County Drug Task Force, a multiagency unit run out of the sheriff’s department.

How often money is confiscated from people not charged with crimes is hard to determine, Barile said, but his best guess for his department is that it happens “maybe 10 percent of the time” his department performs a seizure.

Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards said her office seldom sees forfeitures without criminal charges attached.

Bob Trgovich, assistant U.S. attorney at the local federal court, said it’s not necessarily a rare practice for his office but it does happen, sometimes with more drawn-out cases.

“We had a case a few years ago where members of this conspiracy, over the course of two years, were stopped several times,” he said. “Each time they were stopped, they had large amounts of money.”

Though the processes may differ with each case and whether it’s handled by federal or state prosecutors, people who typically have money seized must file a claim if they want it back. They have to show how they got the money and that it was procured legally. Many don’t even file a claim, according to Trgovich.

“If you find money in a vehicle, and that’s all you find, many times (the people) in the vehicle don’t want to admit it’s theirs,” Trgovich said.

After money is seized by a law enforcement agency, prosecutors in either state or federal court take over a process that determines where the money ends up. Typically, federal prosecutors handle large amounts of money, such as the $26,000 case, which Barile said has been forwarded to federal authorities. Local prosecutors take the cases with smaller amounts of cash, from $1,000 to $4,000, according to Richards.

Depending on the subtleties of the case and what court is involved, the money usually ends up divided among prosecutors and the police agency or agencies responsible for seizing the money. The process can be long and intricate, though.

“It’s a complicated nightmare, actually,” said Auburn Police Chief Martin McCoy, who sometimes is a spokesman for the IMAGE Drug Task Force, made up of officers from Noble, LaGrange, Steuben and DeKalb counties.

In a state seizure case, the arresting agency must show how much money it used in the investigation that led to the seizure. Prosecutors, too, have to show how much money went into the litigation for the seizures.

“You’re supposed to take your law enforcement expenses out of (the seized money), which could be anything from the attorney’s time to write a search warrant, the cost of doing the forfeiture, the court costs, or (drug) buy money for the police department,” Richards said.

In some cases, that money gets funneled back into the respective agencies involved with the seizures, according to Richards, McCoy and Barile.

The money left over after expenses goes to the state’s Common School Fund, which was established in 1851 and has historically been used to provide low-interest loans for school-building projects.

For example, if police seize $5,000 and the department and prosecutor show the investigation and litigation into the case cost $2,000, the two agencies will probably split $2,000 of the money. The remaining $3,000 goes to the Common School Fund.

A federal seizure typically goes quicker, McCoy said, and the Common School Fund is not in play. A police agency can receive up to 75 percent of the money it seizes, according to Barile and McCoy, while prosecutors at the federal level keep the rest.

According to McCoy, his department does not seize a lot of money, and maybe has one case a year that results in the confiscation of more than $5,000. When the Auburn Police Department seizes money, whatever is recouped usually goes into a general fund for the city of Auburn, and the police department does not see that money again.

If the IMAGE Task Force takes the money, it usually gets that cash back. But, he said, it’s not like seizures are in abundance in his jurisdiction.

“We’re not getting rich on seizures, by any means,” he said.

This is an extremely well documented rant. Check out the hyperlinks for more information. Is one answer an un-coordinated variation of the Michael Collins gambit in the manner of an application of Talion law by people of conscience working as leaderless agents of vendetta justice against those who have done and are doing harm to others? Hmmmmm...

When Is It Going To Be Enough, America?

Lorie Kramer
March 15, 2009

Believe it or not, this started being about HR875 & S425, but in the writing of it, it's just so much more.
This is about the amazing things happening in this nation,
and the inconcievable tolerance the American public has of it all.

Dear, dear, America, When is it going to be enough? Haven't you been disrespected, marginalized, misdirected, demeaned, disregarded, ignored, insulted, bullshitted, deliberately misinformed, uninformed, manipulated, controlled, cheated, lied to, poisoned, killed…and generally just plane old screwed for long enough? I'm really starting to wonder about you. Why isn't all that enough for you America? Yoo Hoo! Are you in there? How does it make sense that you can be thrown into jail for an unpaid traffic ticket, perhaps for days if it's on a weekend yet; Bernard Madoff who ruined the lives of thousands gets to hang out in luxury, being available to do whatever one does when they are trying to cover their assets before going to jail? Isn't that enough for you, America? You are a number. You are photographed hundreds of times everyday. They intend to track you everywhere, they pretty much already do. They already have your grocery cards, and your cars, and your phones, and your computers. They want to "chip" you, and your animals. You have no privacy. Why isn't that enough for you, America? You work, most of you, when you can. Those that don't work and live off the system just don't "get it". Then you pay for their dead weight and their children's. Hell, you allow yourselves to work a third of the year just to pay taxes! Do you think that's what our founding fathers had in mind? Is that not enough for you YET, America? You have worked hard for years, tried to save, invested for the future; only to see your future become a far less comfortable one, if it will be there for you at all. All this because of the legalized gambling known as "the stock market". All this so that bankers and corporations and politicians can profit, from your losses. And you allow them to throw more and more of your money down the toilet. Your dollar is dying. The domino effect of the situation resulted in a global financial meltdown. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? As the late great Bill Hicks said, "Entertainment is a weapon." Your "news" is controlled and manufactured. Your comedians are the journalists. You and your children are stupefied and zombified by television. Movies, cars, sports and fashion, and Hallmark holidays; they take your attention and your resources. You are in debt up to your ears. Isn't that enough for you, America? Your jobs have already gone overseas or are disappearing daily. Welfare, which used to be an embarrassing thing to partake of, is a way of life for millions. Is that enough for you, America? Your Constitution might as well not even exist. You allow the marginalizing and silencing of those who would honor it. You call them "possible terrorists". You watch as they try to deny you your rights. You allow them to ignore our borders and the consequences. You don't care enough anymore whether or not the person who "leads" your nation can provide the necessary qualifications to even be considered to run for the office, let alone occupy it. That's why "they" can slip such schmucks in on you, you make it so easy. Don't YOU and your children have to throw down your birth certificates for all kinds of things? I thought so. It's the law. Try and not do it and see what happens. Your current liar in chief didn't have to do it. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? Then, you are told that you have "no standing" in YOUR own courts to question whether or not these Constitutional requirements have been fulfilled. One or two of you make it part of the way only to be told you WILL NOT BE HEARD, and that's OK with you! Why isn't THAT enough for you America? Any of you, and I mean ANY of you has standing to ask this question because it is YOUR Constitution that is OUR LAW. Should you decide to voice your opinion in disagreement with those in power, you are "allowed" to do so but are penned in cages, or trodden by horses, or beaten or sprayed or tazed. Why isn't THAT enough for you America? Your rights have been marginalized; you allow voter fraud to go unchecked. You scream for change but at the next election, you re-elect all but 8 of the 257 about which you complain. Your cities and towns are in disrepair, your infrastructure is crumbling. You devalue your teachers, and reward thieves. You let your schools flounder; therefore many of your children are ignorant (not stupid, there's a difference). Too many of you are fat, way too many of you are on way too many drugs, legal or not. Your sweeteners cause cancer. You are diseased with mystery illnesses, cancer and HIV/AIDS; and your vaccines are dangerous. Why isn't all of THAT enough for you, America? Your families are in shambles. Your children are parents. Divorce is expected. Lying is expected and accepted. Sex is perverted. Morals are old-fashioned. Love is hardly a thing of real value. All this supported by your "media" and "entertainment" industry. Is that still not enough for you, America? Your fellow Americans have raised valid questions about what actually happened on 9-11. Instead of investigating and insisting on the truth, you demonize them and act as if there could be no possibility of any foul play. There is plenty of evidence that the "official" story is not complete or accurate. You saw with your own eyes how that went down. They continue to lie to you and use the tragedy to further restrict your liberties. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? You are no longer considered one of the good guys in the geopolitical scheme of things. You are hated and reviled for your foreign policy. War profiteering is more important than human life; more important than you and your children's lives; and those of "the enemy". Your military and government tortures. Your sons and daughters have died for greed and nation building; and now they want Iran. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? Your drinking water is laced with mind numbing poison. Your cell phones are rotting your brains. You live in an electromagnetic cess pool. Is that enough for you, America? Your atmosphere, the air you need to breathe, and the waters that you and all other living things on the planet need to live, have been poisoned, often beyond repair; to facilitate military/industrial desires. Why isn't THAT enough for you, America? And now, they are after your food, AGAIN. That's what this started to be about, HR875 & S425. The HR875 bill is in committee in the House with 40, count them, 40 sponsors that will let the government control what you can and cannot do on your own land, with your own crops or livestock, or organic garden. Ixquick it. This bill was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband, Stanley Greenberg, works for Monsanto. This bears repeating. This bill was introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband, Stanley Greenberg, works for Monsanto. Do you honestly think this is going to be GOOD for you? Don't we already have the FDA and the USDA and the FSIS? Why do we need this new agency of control? Growing one's own food, local farms, co-ops and ranches are things that do indeed need to be protected. If this global crisis continues, and all indications are that it will; what are you going to do for food if your local growers go away because of government regulation and/or fines and penalties? Remember victory gardens, they used to be a good idea, now they are a threat? It looks to me like what we need to protect our food from is our government. If they finally go after your food, and you'd better know they are, what are you going to do about it? I'll write more on that and watch it. But, they'll still try and do it. When they do, which is NOW, will THAT be enough for you, America? It's all more than enough for me. Where the hell are you, America?

When is enough going to be enough?

Lorie Kramer
Houston, TX
seektress@seektress.info

"As stern as it sometimes appears to be, the truth is love and is never anything but love."
Vernon Howard

A judicial experience myth

SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS

Scott D. Gerber / Special To The National Law Journal

March 9, 2009

To paraphrase the classic E.F. Hutton commercial, "When the chief justice talks, people listen." It doesn't even matter if what he says is a 90-second sound bite in the middle of a sentimental speech about his predecessor in the center chair.

Such is the case with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s comment during his recent Rehnquist Center Lecture that, because every member of his court is a former federal appeals court judge, the court now takes "a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective" to the questions it decides. Previously, he said, "the practice of constitutional law — how constitutional law was made — was more fluid and wide ranging than it is today, more in the realm of political science."

Roberts' praise for Supreme Court justices with prior judicial experience marks at least the third time since the heyday of the Rehnquist Court that someone with the power to influence who gets appointed to the nation's highest court has extolled the virtues of such experience. The most vicious occasion occurred during the imbroglio over the nomination of Harriet Miers. As readers may recall, Miers withdrew her name from consideration after being savaged by the legalerati for, among other reasons, a lack of judicial experience.

Consensus-building, debunked

Intriguingly, the current fetish about prior judicial experience actually traces to the presidency of Bill Clinton, who announced in 1994 that he was nominating Stephen G. Breyer to the Supreme Court in large part because of the nonpartisan "consensus-building" skills that Breyer had exhibited on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But none of the articulated reasons for valuing prior judicial experience — as a predictor of consensus-building skills, as a proxy for merit and to ensure that Supreme Court decisions are grounded in "law" rather than "policy" — are supported by the facts. Keeok Park and I debunked the consensus-building rationale in an article published in the American Political Science Review that examined the members of the Rehnquist Court with prior appellate court experience. We found that all the justices became less concerned with building consensus as justices than when they were as judges in a lower court because they viewed themselves as policymakers on the high court.

A Ph.D. in political science is not required to repudiate the argument that prior judicial experience is a necessary condition for "greatness" on the Supreme Court: A nodding acquaintance with history will suffice. Only two of the justices appearing on all, or most, of the lists of "great" justices had significant prior judicial experience, and those justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo, were great because, in the evocative words of Felix Frankfurter, "they were Holmes and Cardozo. They were thinkers, and particularly, legal philosophers."

With respect to the most recent iteration on the importance of prior judicial experience — Roberts' claim that it has led the members of his court to forsake policy judgments for legal judgments — political scientists have come out of the woodwork to challenge it. For example, Professor Lee Epstein of Northwestern University School of Law, among the nation's most influential political scientists, concisely informed the New York Times when queried about the chief justice's claim that "the data don't support it."

The most profound judicial mind since Holmes doesn't support it, either. Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit concludes in a recent book, How Judges Think, that judges, including Supreme Court justices, can't help but make policy decisions. In fact, Posner characterizes Roberts' well-known analogy that judges should be "umpires" not "batters" as little more than an "updating for a sports-crazed era" of Alexander Hamilton's sophistic claim in Federalist No. 78 that federal judges would exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment" if the Constitution were ratified. Most people didn't believe Hamilton in 1788, and Posner doesn't believe Roberts today.

Let's hope that the misguided call for Supreme Court justices with prior judicial experience suffers the same fate as E.F. Hutton: It fades into oblivion.

There is reason to be optimistic. President Barack Obama stated during the campaign that he was open to appointing someone to the nation's highest court who wasn't a sitting federal appeals court judge. Although the policies an Obama Supreme Court nominee would seek to advance almost certainly would be more egalitarian than my libertarian instincts would prefer, at least we could put to bed the trope that Supreme Court justices aren't making policy and concentrate in 2012 on what John McCain encouraged us to concentrate on in 2008 when he was asked about filling Supreme Court vacancies: Elections have consequences.

Scott D. Gerber is the Ella and Ernest Fisher Chair and Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law and a senior research scholar in law and politics at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center. He is the author of, among other works, First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas (2002) and The Law Clerk: A Novel (2007).

Probate Judge Issues Pay Raises Over Council's Objections

Ind. Courts - Yet more on "St. Joseph County Probate Judge to issue pay raises despite council's objections."

Updating earlier ILB entries, including this latest one from Feb. 25th, WNDU South Bend has this brief report:

St. Joseph County has challenged a judge's attempt to mandate pay raises for eight workers at the Juvenile Justice Center.

This week, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered that the case go to mediation.

Both sides have 15-days to select a mediator, or the Supreme Court will assign one to the case.

St. Joseph County Probate Court Judge Peter Nemeth sought to use his judicial mandate powers to order double digit pay raises for eight employees.

The raises were to be funded by fees paid by juvenile offenders--as opposed to tax dollars.

The Supreme Court has posted an Order Referring Case for Mediation, dated March 2. It deals with three matters: (1) real estate acquired and used for the juvenile justice center; (2) the funding of building and structural repairs and equipment for the center; and (3) the appropriation of funds from the juvenile probation services fund for certain salary increases.

The Supreme Court's Order states that, on Feb. 4th, it had amended TR 60.5, based upon recommendations of the Indiana Judges Association and the Indiana Association of Counties: "One of the new amendments to TR 60.5 authorizes this Court to order the parties to submit their dispute to mediation at any time in the process."

This is an effort to resolve the continuing problem at the local level between the local courts and the local government units with respect to control over finances. This ILB entry from Sept. 5, 2008 gives an overview of the problem. This paragraph indicates that thought was being given at that time to reviewing TR 60.5:

Re Rule 60.5, the CJ said it was adopted by the Court at the request of the counties, to establish something more orderly, a forum to address concerns of the counties in the 1970s and 80s. Our Court's view, said CJ Shepard, is that TR 60.5 is printed on paper, not carved in stone. In the last six months, the Indiana Judges Association has asked the Indiana Association of Counties to meet and talk about TR 60.5. The Supreme Court, he concluded, is open to restructuring.

Here is the revised wording of TR 60.5.

Corruption in Congress: Indiana Rep. Pete Visclosky

March 2, 12:18 PM ·

Rep. Pete Visclosky

Indiana Democrat Rep. Pete Visclosky is among a number of members of Congress who are being accused of having ties to a defense lobbying firm under federal investigation. The PMA group, one of the biggest lobbying firms in Washington, which specialize in securing defense earmarks for it clients. It steered donations to lawmakers through sham donors.

Visclosky's former congressional chief of staff worked as a lobbyist for the firm. According to the Federal Election Commission, he received around $100,000 from donors tied to PMA between 2006 and 2008. Among donors listed were some members of PMA's board of directors. The group was the largest donor to the Representatives 2008 reelection campaign. The result was that Visclosky reciprocated, helping to secure $23 million in earmarks for clients of PMA.

For further reading:

Political corruption acceptable in the U.S.
Congressional Pork and Pay-to-Play goes round and round
Pork and political corruption go hand-in-hand

Citations: Police Duties and Limits of Authority

Tell your children and others around you:

"Remain alert. Behave graciously. Obey the law. Demand respect for your rights. Do Not Tolerate abuse from police, Sheriffs, deputies, judges, conservators of the peace, or other law enforcement officers. Report every instance of abuse to the State Attorney, Grand Jury, and (for judges) the House Judiciary Committee, and vigorously prosecute a law suit for any damages you suffer from such abuse." See citations below.

S.O.S. (Son Of Stroller)

=================

"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government." - Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94.

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." - In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

"Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen, under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,- to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only restrained as the rights to others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places; and while conducting themselves in a decent and orderly manner, disturbing no other, and interfering with the rights of no other citizens, there, they will be protected under law, not only their persons, but in their safe conduct. The constitution and the laws are framed for the public good, and the protection of all citizens from the highest to the lowest; and no one may be restrained of his liberty, unless he transgressed some law. Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all rights which our constitution guarantees." - Pinkerton v. Verberg* 99 S.Ct. 2627 (1979)

"Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers (People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434, 437 [282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513] [former Pen. Code, ' 653h "could" not authorize violations of the Constitution]), must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights." -Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com*., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]

"The duties of police officers are many and varied. (21 Cal.Jur. 400 et seq.) Such officers are the guardians of the peace and security of the community, and the efficiency of our whole system, designed for the purpose of maintaining law and order, depends upon the extent to which such officers perform their duties and are faithful to the trust reposed in them. Among the duties of police officers are those of preventing the commission of crime, of assisting in its detection, and of disclosing all information known to them which may lead to the apprehension and punishment of those who have transgressed our laws. When police officers acquire knowledge of facts which will tend to incriminate any person, it is their duty to disclose such facts to their superiors and to testify freely concerning such facts when called upon to do so before any duly constituted court or grand jury. It is for the performance of these duties that police officers are commissioned and paid by the community, [33 Cal.App.2d 568] and it is a violation of said duties for any police officer to refuse to disclose pertinent facts within his knowledge even though such disclosure may show, or tend to show, that he himself has engaged in criminal activities." - Christal v. Police Commission*, 33 Cal.App.2d 564 [Civ. No. 11003. First Appellate District, Division Two. June 29, 1939.]

"Having made no showing that Officer Erickson had a warrant for the arrest or search of defendant, the burden to demonstrate justification for the police conduct rested on the prosecution. (Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [294 P.2d 23]." - People v. Superior Court (Simon), 7 Cal.3d 186 [L.A. No. 29881. Supreme Court of California. May 19, 1972.]

"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity..." - 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability.

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States, or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceedings for redress. ..To maintain an action under 42 USC 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully, or in a furtherance of a conspiracy. . . it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation. . . was the natural consequences of defendants acting under color of law. . . ." - Ethridge v. Rhodos*, DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83 (1967), *Whirl v. Kern CA* 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)

Title 18 USC Section 241, provides that... "any person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of any right so secured by law...shall be fined not more than *$10,000.00*or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.

Tuesday Morning Links

Every generation has its challenges, its wars and its peculiar identity. Every generation replaces the one in front of it and gets replaced by the one behind it. The enemy of each generation is always the same. It changes its clothes and terrain. It moves in and out of political ideologies and religious dogmas but it’s the same enemy.

Defining the enemy isn’t an easy thing. You’re dealing with continuous shape-shifting. You think you are confronting it in front of you when it is actually leaning over your shoulder and advising you. You find that it agrees with you and is on your side only to discover that it has used its seeming alliance to discredit what you believe in; to misrepresent what you believe in.

One day it’s the communists, next day it’s the Nazis, today it’s the Zionists. Tomorrow it will morph into something else. It’s always about disinformation and confusion. It’s always about treachery and deceit. While it is filling your head with Al Qaeda and terrorism it is muscling up against Russia about Kosovo and running Columbian insurgencies against Venezuela. It’s always moving on to the next conflict where it’s selling weapons to both sides.

It’s controlling the information into the mass mind. It knows that you know about it. It also knows that all it has to do is to control the larger portion of humanity that does not possess objective reasoning in order to make you ineffective.

It controls the flow of money. It opens the tap and closes the tap. It prints money out of thin air. It goes back to ‘the big dogs in the yard’. No matter what time in history you find yourself in, the big dogs are there along with the pigs and the reptiles. It’s an unfortunate truth that animal characteristics express themselves through human agency when the human agency is open to that expression. This comes about when greed and the will to power predominate over the inspiring angels of our higher nature. You see a lot of it when materialism is in the ascendant as it is today.

This is what dumbing down is all about. This is why the usual entertainments are all cheap entertainments and why what passes for music today is full of ‘pimps’ and ‘bitches’ and ‘ho’s’. This is what tabloids are about and what Rupert Murdoch is about. This is how you get worked and controlled; by playing to your lower nature and by making you appear to be less than you are… by demeaning humanity in it’s own eyes. The trashiest aspects among us are being held up as icons of success. The worst liars have the most airtime. There is nothing accidental about any of this.

You become a slave when you cease to be your own master. None of what is going on is new. It’s older than ‘bread and circuses’. It’s about distraction and Jack in the Box non-existent enemies that the state creates. It points at the enemy with one hand and draws you into its protective embrace with the other. It blows up trains and buildings and makes laws to protect you from these events which results in increasingly restrictive legislations against your freedom of action, speech and thought. It is right out of Orwell but it was going on long before that.

The first thing we must all realize is that we are considered as nothing more than pawns and canon fodder to the big dogs in the yard. The next thing that must be realized is that we are dealing with psychopaths and it would behoove us all to know just what that means. It is also important to remember that though psychopaths are not human as we understand that term, they are practical.

Psychopaths are practical, remember that. Realize that we do not have the guns to storm the castle. Besides the reality of this fact there are other ways to succeed. I have said it before and I am going to say it again. We the people must stop the wheel. We must cease to work and to consume except for basic needs. If we do not feed the beast with our time and money the beast will have to adjust. Somehow, some way, what I am saying here has to be repeated all across the internet. Somehow, some way, some courageous souls must organize and it must catch fire across the country and the globe. A week must be set aside in which some large part of the planet does nothing, in protest of what is happening. It must happen again and again until it succeeds. Psychopaths are practical.

You have a choice, seize the moment and bring these big dogs to heel. We are far more powerful than they. Your choice is whether you now cry, “Hold! Enough!!!” or whether you have something far worse thrust upon you further down the road. There is no avoiding this issue. Either you act soon or you will be compelled to act later after even greater and more protracted suffering. We can expect nothing more from our leaders. They have failed us. We can expect nothing from public and religious leaders and famous entertainers, nor can we tell the difference between them. We must now expect something from ourselves. We the people.

S.O.S. (Son Of Stroller)

LINKS

• Lugar Calls for Deeper Understanding of Food Shortage Challenges 1 Mar 2009 23:10 GMT
  ... on my family's farm in Marion County, Indiana, I have faith that human ingenuity can ... population areas. In those nations afflicted by corruption, agriculture assistance also may offer less of ...
• Ex-cop gets up to 4 years for teen sex 1 Mar 2009 21:10 GMT
  ... prison for having sex with a 16-year-old Indiana girl he met online. Fifty-year-old Herrick Johnson ... endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors in December. The Dyer, Ind., ...
• Creditors Sue Former Directors and Officers of First Magnus in $1 Billion Lawsuit 1 Mar 2009 09:11 GMT
  ... and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). For further information, please ... courts of Texas, Arizona, California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and New York. According ...
• CONGRESSMAN'S TIES TO TROUBLED FIRM RUN DEEP 1 Mar 2009 05:50 GMT
  ... represents an area known for its rampant corruption, but Rep. Pete Visclosky has always had ... being challenged by revelations about the northwest Indiana Democrat's ties to a troubled defense lobbying ...

Themis "The Goddess of Justice" being raped

CLICK >“I AM INDIANA JUDGE ... “ (Audio)

Indiana Supreme Court: Randall T. Shepard (Middle), Brent E. Dickson, Frank Sullivan, Jr., Theodore R. Boehm, Robert D. Rucker.


Left: Judge Rex L. Reed, a criminally out of control judge; and Stephen Carter, Indiana Attorney General (along with his deputy, David Arthur) Guardian Angel of Corrupt Indiana Judiciary. Is he serving people of Indiana??

Constitutional Violations, Fraud, and Conspiracy to defraud, Obstruction of Justice, Endangering Children's Safety and Well- Being, Child abuse, Lying in official court documents, Falsifying court records, Threats against parties, Conspiracy to cover up fraud, Violations of Oaths of Office, Treason Against the United States, ... with the Knowledge and Acquiescence of, and Cover up by Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court at the Highest Level (”Chief Judge”, Randall Terry Shepard, who ultimately must bear responsibility for the criminal corruption of Indiana judges).

The United States Supreme Court has buried its head in the sand while its own federal courts (e.g. CA7, USDC-IN, but to name a couple) unconstitutionally and unlawfully continue to ignore and violate the Constitution and USSC's own directives where concerns the plight of people who seek fundamental, civil and human rights remedy and redress for atrocities and corruption perpetrated by state (Indiana) judiciaries and courts !!! This capitulation to the states' judicial corruption erodes the authority of the federal laws and Constitution and people's protection under them. Hence, it is a deliberate betrayal of people's rights and trust!
(C.f. Indiana Supreme Court appointing corrupt judges and not only knowingly ignoring, and hence participating in their atrocities, but also covering up their criminal activities.)
The USSC is in direct and express violation of the Constitution by declining to hear people's Petitions (For Writ of Certiorari) to provide “redress” in the face of lower federal and particularly state courts' corruption ????? Such neglect and failure places the United States in direct violation of international treaties and Compacts (such as United Nations Conventions On Human and Political Rights, Charter 77, Rights of Children) it has signed and ratified!!!!!! Hence, rendering the United States in further violation of norms of humanity, decency and morality, not to mention international law!!!!!!

In the US, millions of children are kidnapped by the state courts, in conspiracy with county prosecutors and higher state judiciaries, and given to one parent (overwhelmingly to females) in order to collect extortion “incentive” kickback money ($Billions annually) from the willingly defrauded and colluding federal government (social engineering). In a vast majority of these cases, the children are abused and suffer, with the knowledge and often participation of the said judiciary, from “Stockholm Syndrome” due to perpetration of “Parental Alienation” in “Hostile [and unlawful] Custody Environment” just so that the states, their courts, judiciaries and county prosecutors get their share of the kidnap (“incentive”) money and ransom.
In Indiana , courts who decide to perpetrate (conflict of interest ?!) such atrocities and abuse upon children and their victimized “Non-Custodial” Parents get 22.2% of the kidnap money, counties' general budget get 22.2% and the county prosecutors who enforce these unlawful kidnap orders under Title IV-D get 33.4% of the kidnap (extortion) money. Perpetrators of such Criminal Misconduct and Human Rights violations should be prosecuted.