Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 10:18 PM -0400 7/20/01, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:04:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@sethf.com> To: freematt@coil.com Subject: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
Remember what I told you: "If you think Clinton was dismal, you're going to find out what dismal *is*, during a Bush administration."
[And Matt's reply is: They're both dismal.]
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20010720/pl/ashcroft_cybercrime_1.html
Friday July 20 5:24 PM ET
Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, Associated Press Writer
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (AP) - Calling computer security one of the nation's top problems, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday that the government is forming nine special units to prosecute hacking and copyright violations.
Ashcroft said the new specialists will bring to 48 the number of prosecutors working on cybercrime in U.S. attorneys' offices.
Gee, imagine that, the Attorney General wanting to enforce crimes. What *is* this world coming to? We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books. If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
Gee, imagine that, the Attorney General wanting to enforce crimes.
What *is* this world coming to?
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
Actually they do share some of the blame. They are swore oaths to support the constitution and the ideals of the this country. Which in many cases is clearly not the intent or result of their actions. They are actively looking for methods to circumvent current laws that put a bridle on their activity. LEA's don's say "OK, we have a 4th so we have to have probable cause first", it's like "OK, we have a 4th. We need to find a way around it." In many cases it is the LEA's themselves which ask for these laws or a law that gives them the latitutude to get around other restraints. And LEA's are a part of the 'executive branch'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right...
At 12:32 PM -0500 7/21/01, Benson Schliesser wrote:
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right...
If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box. In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it. That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more.
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
At 12:32 PM -0500 7/21/01, Benson Schliesser wrote:
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right...
If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box.
In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it.
That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more.
You are arguing a mere degree of difference Petro. The fact that Ashcroft "believes in the constitution" (like YOU would have any way to be imbued with such knowledge!) is irrelevent. Even if we accept your assertion that Ashcroft believes, if he is willing to enforce clearly violative laws, then is the *enemy*. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/22/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
At 12:32 PM -0500 7/21/01, Benson Schliesser wrote:
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right...
If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box.
In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it.
That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more.
You are arguing a mere degree of difference Petro. The fact that Ashcroft "believes in the constitution" (like YOU would have any way to be imbued with such knowledge!) is irrelevent.
Even if we accept your assertion that Ashcroft believes, if he is willing to enforce clearly violative laws, then is the *enemy*.
My point, which I obviously did not make clearly enough, is that Ashcroft appears, unlike at least his immediate predecessor, to believe in rule of law, rather than rule by force. This is not "a mere degree of difference", it is a fundamental difference. Reno, by actions at least, demonstrated a clear lack of regard for the constitution and the concept of "rule of law". This lead to things like Waco, and the DoJ arguing that the sniper at Ruby Ridge couldn't be tried by the state since he was under Federal orders. Will Ashcroft prove to be any different? I don't know. Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that "clearly" violate the constitution. A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied. That may be less than clear, let me try it another way: One of the fundamental features of a society that is built around the concept of "rule of law" is that the law is knowable by the people, and that they have a reasonable expectation of the consequences should they break that law. When you have a situation where you give carte blanche to LEOs to decide for themselves what is constitutional, you violate that. What one LEO may decide is perfectly constitutional, another may believe is unconstitutional resulting in even more uneven application of the law than we have today. Let us take a constitutional amendment that is under debate, and one that Ashcroft has recently made a statement about. The 2nd. It states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, this is, to some people, fairly clear. The government cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But it doesn't mean that the government cannot make any laws at all regarding firearms, does it? Where is the line? So then you have a situation where, for example, a County Sheriff could interpret the constitution in a very broad way, ordering his officers *not* to arrest anyone carrying a conceal weapon, even tho' it's nominally illegal in his state, while the various city and town police departments take a slightly narrower interpretation--that conceal weapons are illegal. Then you have a situation where what is considered legal and proper changes depending on who pulls you over for speeding. Furthermore, let's say that that Sheriff gets voted out of office, or is replaced for some other reason, and you get a new Sheriff who disagrees *slightly* with the old Sheriff, and orders his Deputies to start arresting people who violate that states (possibly perfectly constitutional) prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon. Now you have a situation where what was previously "legal" (in the sense that you weren't going to get arrested for it) change without (or with little) notice. I'm sure that with a little thought I could come up with a better scenario that more clearly elucidates the point. It's far better to expect, and in fact *insist* that LEOs enforce the law equally and to the letter than to insist that each one of them figure out for themselves what is right and proper for them to enforce. Then pressure the Courts and the Legislative/Executive branch to make the laws clear and rapidly judge them on their constitutionality.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 11:28:41PM -0700, Petro wrote:
Will Ashcroft prove to be any different? I don't know.
A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all
Don't underestimate institutional bureaucracy or the FBI's independence. people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied. This is wrongheaded and silly. c.f. Reno's announcement that she would not prosecute under the "no distribution of abortion information" section of the CDA. Didn't hear anyone screaming then, did ya? -Declan
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro burbled upon us thusly:
Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that "clearly" violate the constitution.
A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied.
Maybe you should look at the oaths that are sworn to by all public employees, of which LEOs are but a small maggot in a big sewer. All of them contain a provision whereby there swear to uphold the constitution. Not to follow orders which may or may not be chain-of-command valid, and *hopefully* constitutional. As for refusing to enforce laws which are personally believed to be unconstitutional, this goes on all the time, both officially [Sherriff Blah refuses to enforce law X - publicly], and unofficially Officer Y refuses to enforce law X - privately]. How many weeks before middle schools reopen, anyway? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 5:08 PM -0500 7/23/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro burbled upon us thusly:
Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that "clearly" violate the constitution.
A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied.
Maybe you should look at the oaths that are sworn to by all public employees, of which LEOs are but a small maggot in a big sewer. All of
I took one of those 16 years ago as a US Marine, and again 5 years later as a member of the National Guard. I've also spent a fair amount of time thinking about that oath, and the ramifications of it.
them contain a provision whereby there swear to uphold the constitution. Not to follow orders which may or may not be chain-of-command valid, and *hopefully* constitutional.
At the risk of going Choatien and stepping far beyond any degrees I may have, the position that each and every LEO in this country *should* (as opposed to does) decide for himself whether a law fits his understanding of the constitution before enforcing it is not only unworkable, but--if the LEO truly believes in the concepts of "Rule of Law", wrong headed. As a further disclaimer, let me say that I don't think "The Legal Community" agrees with me. They're agreement or not isn't a factor in my thinking. I already know (as Declan points out) that Reno doesn't agree with me, but from her actions it's quite clear she doesn't believe in the Rule Of Law--at least not in the sense I've been using it. Now, in an ideal world the constitution would be clearly worded and the semantics would be clearly understood by the people who live under it. However, "It ain't like that". English is by no means an ISO (or even ANSI) standard, and even reasonable people can disagree on the complexity generated by the various articles and sections of the constitution and the amendments. Look for example to the issue of the Second Amendment. The clearest plain word interpretation of that amendment is that the no one has the ability to infringe on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. Fairly simple. Does that then mean that just about every firearm law in the country is invalid on it's face? Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't "infringe" on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they? What are the limits of that particular clause? Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement? Is it acceptable for Congress to set (legitimate) product reliability standards? (e.g. to require a pistol must be capable of firing <x> rounds between failures etc.) or certain safety guidelines (e.g. that every handgun be fitted with a safety device of some sort that keeps it from firing unless the trigger has been pulled). Let's get even finer. Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions on what does and doesn't fall into "protected speech" (or even whether there is a distinction there to be made?) Or how about certain laws of a very questionable nature that make it a crime for groups larger than <x> to gather without a permit. On it's face these are unconstitutional, but if the vast majority of police in a district *don't* enforce these laws, but one or two do (under the belief that the constitution only applies restrictions to the state and federal government, not the city governments (there are people who believe this, and absent the explicit incorporation by the 14th (which even by the appellate courts is applied non-uniformly so far) they may have a legitimate argument) then you have a case where you are just hanging out with some 5 or 10 of your closest buddies as you do every day, and the normal beat-cop, who doesn't enforce this law because it's unconstitutional doesn't say anything, but his fill-in on a sick day rousts you all and takes you to jail. It's happened in Chicago, and worse (see below). There are at least 3 states a law can be in vis-a-vis constitutionality: (1) Adjudged unconstitutional. (2) Adjudged constitutional. (3) Not adjudged relative to it's constitutionality. Now, things get a little less clear. In the case of (1) and (2) there is the question, not only of exactly what the court upheld or didn't (see the recent case of the Oakland Cannibis decesion, widely reported to have the SC declare Medical Marijuana unconstitutional, but actually simply said that "No silly, of COURSE federal law trumps state law in a Federal Court"), but *which* court upheld or struck down a the law. For instance, in the Peoples Republic of California there is no right to keep and bear arms. Since it's not in the State Constitution, and the BoR only applies to the *collective*, not the individual, then there is no individual right. So here we have a fairly high level court saying we don't have a right which *most* people in this country say we do (the majority believes that the 2nd "gives" the individual the right to keep and bear arms, they just may not agree with that right). What is a LEO to do? In *his* belief, the court is wrong, but according to *THE COURT* there is no constitutional protection of firearm ownership, therefore just about any laws that don't run roughshod over other protections (that the court may or may not have spoken on). Let us then look at the case in the 5th district court--Emerson. By all appearances (and this is largely supposition at the moment) the justices in that case seem to be of the opinion that the 2nd does give an individual right to arms. But an officer in, say New Orleans doesn't agree, he is of the opinion that the 2nd *only* applies to organized militia members, and only to military firearms. So even after the court rules on Emerson (assuming for the sake of argument that they do rule strong in favor of an individual right) this member of NOs finest continues to arrest people like Dr. Emerson on weapons charges. Back to Chicago for a second. See, in Chicago, at least until 2 years ago, they had this "anti-gang" ordinance that (get this) prohibited loitering in public parks, and prohibited groups of more than <x> (where <x> was somewhere between 3 and 7, I think it was 5, but I can't remember exactly) from loitering on public property. This was a very, very sparsely enforced law, and was most often used by Police to harass people who were legitimately gang members. It was also occasionally used to harass kids who weren't gang members, but were black or hispanic and lived in less than middle class neighborhoods. Thing is, the Illinois Supreme Court had already declared it unconstitutional. But the CPD kept enforcing it. I guess that was Ok, because the CPD (at least a number of it's members) believed that, in their considered opinion, the law *was* constitutional, and the Courts Be Hanged. Of course, if you were white and/or "properly" dressed and/or in a decent neighborhood, you didn't have to worry. Yup. The kind of country I want to live in, one where the police get to decide the rules. The main thrust of the argument against this is that LEOs take an oath which in part instructs them to "protect and defend the constitution", and that from this they then get both the privilege and the responsibility of deciding on their own what is and isn't constitutional. But their very oath prevents this. See, in the constitution there is what is called "Separation of Powers". One branch to make the laws, One branch to enforce them, and one branch to judge. The police belong to the Executive branch. It is not only not their job--as officers of the law--to judge the law, they are not *as police officers* supposed to. They are supposed to carry out the dictates of the legislature, tempered by the courts. The common retort to this is "what if they are told to enforce a law they *know* is unconstitutional. The answer is, if the law falls into case (3) above, that being that the law is, as Dimitri is facing, a law that has not been tested, they don't know, and they have 2 options. The first option is to go ahead and enforce it, relying on the courts to sort it out, after all that is the courts job, and once the court renders it's decision (falling in to (1) or (2), then that tells them what they are supposed to do. The second option is, in the face of a law that is so obviously unconstitutional (for instance a law ordering a door to door search for and confiscation of firearms and the incarceration of the owner for example) is to hand in their badge. Now, those are the only two options *as LEOs*. Every LEO is also a citizen of this country (more or less, there may be some green card holders as police, I don't know), and as citizens, in fact people living in this country they have the right to speak out against things they find unconstitutional or wrong. They have the right to the soap box, the ballot box, and failing all those, the cartridge box. There is also the argument that there are occasionally orders that because of their immediacy it leaves the officer no time for one of those two options--for instance the case of being ordered to fire into a relatively peaceful gathering. That case has little to do with constitutionality and more to do with the legality of the order. No one is obligated to follow orders they belive are illegal, but they best be damn sure.
As for refusing to enforce laws which are personally believed to be unconstitutional, this goes on all the time, both officially [Sherriff Blah refuses to enforce law X - publicly], and unofficially Officer Y refuses to enforce law X - privately].
And for the reasons I've outlined in this post, and in my previous post, I believe both of these cases the individuals are acting improperly. In the first, the <sic> Sherriff does his constituency a disservice. If he believes the law unconstitutional he should use his office to arrange a challenge of that law, otherwise he only "protects" those under his jurisdiction while he's in office (of course, this could simply be a ploy to retain office as in every county I've lived in the Sheriff was elected.). As to the individual police officer, they have to do as their conscience and beliefs guide them. I find more often than not LEOs tend to fall on the side of enforcing laws of questionable constitutionality and tend to ignore laws they find "silly" or "annoying" rather than question their constitutionality.
How many weeks before middle schools reopen, anyway?
You and Reese good friends?
At the risk of going Choatien and stepping far beyond any degrees I may have, the position that each and every LEO in this country *should* (as opposed to does) decide for himself whether a law fits his understanding of the constitution before enforcing it is not only unworkable, but--if the LEO truly believes in the concepts of "Rule of Law", wrong headed.
Wrong headed or not, LEOs are manufactured out of human beings, and because of this, the spend a considerable amount of time in the Maggot Academy (tm) being taught the fine points of this very issue. In fact, a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them on how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected {speech, action}. If they did not use this "ability", they would have to arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
As a further disclaimer, let me say that I don't think "The Legal Community" agrees with me. They're agreement or not isn't a factor in my thinking. I already know (as Declan points out) that Reno doesn't agree with me, but from her actions it's quite clear she doesn't believe in the Rule Of Law--at least not in the sense I've been using it.
Actually, she is the perfect example: she interpreted the constitution her way. The "Rule of Law" has to be implemented at the individual [enforcer] level: therefore, each enforcer is putin the position of having to make and act on their [constitutional] opinions on a moment to moment basis. The fact that you [and in this rare case] I agree that Reno is a fascist sack of shit is completely irrelevent.
Now, in an ideal world the constitution would be clearly worded and the semantics would be clearly understood by the people who live under it. However, "It ain't like that". English is by no means an ISO (or even ANSI) standard, and even reasonable people can disagree on the complexity generated by the various articles and sections of the constitution and the amendments.
Look for example to the issue of the Second Amendment. The clearest plain word interpretation of that amendment is that the no one has the ability to infringe on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Fairly simple.
Does that then mean that just about every firearm law in the country is invalid on it's face?
Yes. And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't "infringe" on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they? What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a truly scary "finding" that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was manufactured. In fact, IIRC, there is an early 1970's case where a felon was convicted under federal laws, even though the weapon he posessed was self-manufactured using components found completely within the state in which the manufacture took place. The ruling basically stated that since the manufacture of the weapon utilized federal notes, there was an interstate commerce nexus. Go look: there are *thousands* of these.
Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement?
Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
Is it acceptable for Congress to set (legitimate) product reliability standards? (e.g. to require a pistol must be capable of firing <x> rounds between failures etc.)
No. This is a free market issue.
or certain safety guidelines (e.g. that every handgun be fitted with a safety device of some sort that keeps it from firing unless the trigger has been pulled).
Again, no. The market will not support a gun manufacturer that does not produce reliable weapons.
Let's get even finer.
Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions on what does and doesn't fall into "protected speech" (or even whether there is a distinction there to be made?)
See above: it is by definition unavoidable.
Or how about certain laws of a very questionable nature that make it a crime for groups larger than <x> to gather without a permit. On it's face these are unconstitutional, but if the vast majority of police in a district *don't* enforce these laws, but one or two do (under the belief that the constitution only applies restrictions to the state and federal government, not the city governments (there are people who believe this, and absent the explicit incorporation by the 14th (which even by the appellate courts is applied non-uniformly so far) they may have a legitimate argument) then you have a case where you are just hanging out with some 5 or 10 of your closest buddies as you do every day, and the normal beat-cop, who doesn't enforce this law because it's unconstitutional doesn't say anything, but his fill-in on a sick day rousts you all and takes you to jail.
I don't know what world *you* live in, but you have just described the world the *rest* of us live in.
It's happened in Chicago, and worse (see below).
There are at least 3 states a law can be in vis-a-vis constitutionality:
(1) Adjudged unconstitutional. (2) Adjudged constitutional. (3) Not adjudged relative to it's constitutionality.
Irrelevent. We are not discussing abstract legal theory, we are discussing factual implementation. <remainder of abstract, albeit interesting crap snipped>
As for refusing to enforce laws which are personally believed to be unconstitutional, this goes on all the time, both officially [Sherriff Blah refuses to enforce law X - publicly], and unofficially Officer Y refuses to enforce law X - privately].
And for the reasons I've outlined in this post, and in my previous post, I believe both of these cases the individuals are acting improperly. In the first, the <sic> Sherriff does his constituency a disservice. If he believes the law unconstitutional he should use his office to arrange a challenge of that law, otherwise he only "protects" those under his jurisdiction while he's in office (of course, this could simply be a ploy to retain office as in every county I've lived in the Sheriff was elected.).
Nevertheless, *this* is how the world works.
As to the individual police officer, they have to do as their conscience and beliefs guide them. I find more often than not LEOs tend to fall on the side of enforcing laws of questionable constitutionality and tend to ignore laws they find "silly" or "annoying" rather than question their constitutionality.
Agreed.
How many weeks before middle schools reopen, anyway?
You and Reese good friends?
Touche' -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:39 AM -0500 7/24/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
At the risk of going Choatien and stepping far beyond any degrees I may have, the position that each and every LEO in this country *should* (as opposed to does) decide for himself whether a law fits his understanding of the constitution before enforcing it is not only unworkable, but--if the LEO truly believes in the concepts of "Rule of Law", wrong headed.
Wrong headed or not, LEOs are manufactured out of human beings, and because of this, the spend a considerable amount of time in the Maggot Academy (tm) being taught the fine points of this very issue. In fact,
No, they don't. Spoke with an officer this evening about it. The cover (at least the academy he went to here in SillyCon valley) 4 amendment issues, and only from the practical standpoint, not the philosphical standpoint, and mostly was "scenario" based.
a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them on how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected {speech, action}. If they did not use this "ability", they would have to arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
No, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or knew) committed an act that violated the law. Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in constitutional issues.
As a further disclaimer, let me say that I don't think "The Legal Community" agrees with me. They're agreement or not isn't a factor in my thinking. I already know (as Declan points out) that Reno doesn't agree with me, but from her actions it's quite clear she doesn't believe in the Rule Of Law--at least not in the sense I've been using it.
Actually, she is the perfect example: she interpreted the constitution her way. The "Rule of Law" has to be implemented at the individual [enforcer] level: therefore, each enforcer is putin the position of having to make and act on their [constitutional] opinions on a moment to moment basis.
Uh. No. From her *ACTIONS* she did not believe in the "Rule Of Law", but believed strongly in the long arm and mailed fist of the law. Witness her actions, and the actions of departments under her. The FBI was, in direct violation of the brady law, retaining the information about firearm purchases. Witness how quickly the Waco crime scene was bulldozed. Witness DOJ lawyers arguing in the Ruby Ridge case that Lon H. was not touchable by state law because he was a Fed acting under orders.
The fact that you [and in this rare case] I agree that Reno is a fascist sack of shit is completely irrelevent.
Well, it's nice to see we agree about something.
Now, in an ideal world the constitution would be clearly worded and the semantics would be clearly understood by the people who live under it. However, "It ain't like that". English is by no means an ISO (or even ANSI) standard, and even reasonable people can disagree on the complexity generated by the various articles and sections of the constitution and the amendments.
Look for example to the issue of the Second Amendment. The clearest plain word interpretation of that amendment is that the no one has the ability to infringe on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Fairly simple.
Does that then mean that just about every firearm law in the country is invalid on it's face? Yes.
No.
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in New Orleans IIRC).
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't "infringe" on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they? What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a truly scary "finding" that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is Congresses power to tax. (At the federal level a good number of firearms cases are on charges of failing to file and or pay the class 2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).
Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement?
Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
I understand "shall not", it's the "infringed" I'm asking about. Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require firearms manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning? In fact, given the basis of the second amendment--that arms are to be available for self-defense, defense of the community and defense of or from the Nation, it could easily be argued that government legislation standardizing a reasonable level of functionality and safety (minimum rounds between malfunctions, drop tests) are not only not infringements, but are enhancements--the guarantee (as much as legislation can) that the arm you buy at the Walmart store will be useful in it's constitutional indicated manner. I'm not arguing for such laws, IMO they aren't needed, but they still would mostly like *not* be considered an infringement.
Is it acceptable for Congress to set (legitimate) product reliability standards? (e.g. to require a pistol must be capable of firing <x> rounds between failures etc.)
No. This is a free market issue.
Whether the free market can provide this or not is orthagonal to the question.
Let's get even finer.
Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions on what does and doesn't fall into "protected speech" (or even whether there is a distinction there to be made?) See above: it is by definition unavoidable.
There are a lot of things that in a society are unavoidable. The question is whether those things should be encouraged or discouraged. My contention is that encouraging a LEO to decide for himself whether a law is constitutional or not is both wrong, and counter productive.
It's happened in Chicago, and worse (see below).
There are at least 3 states a law can be in vis-a-vis constitutionality:
(1) Adjudged unconstitutional. (2) Adjudged constitutional. (3) Not adjudged relative to it's constitutionality.
Irrelevent. We are not discussing abstract legal theory, we are discussing factual implementation.
Factual implementation, outside of dot-coms, should descend from theory.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
Wrong headed or not, LEOs are manufactured out of human beings, and because of this, the spend a considerable amount of time in the Maggot Academy (tm) being taught the fine points of this very issue. In fact,
No, they don't. Spoke with an officer this evening about it.
The cover (at least the academy he went to here in SillyCon valley) 4 amendment issues, and only from the practical standpoint, not the philosphical standpoint, and mostly was "scenario" based.
That explains a lot about the California SS. Down in the United States, or at least in the few areas I have personal knowledge of, New York (City PD and State Trooper) and New Mexico, there is a great deal of constitutional education. This education is seen as necessary to "properly" interpret *when* (not if, sadly enough) an LEO may take certain actions.
a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them on how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected {speech, action}. If they did not use this "ability", they would have to arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
knew) committed an act that violated the law. You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity models.
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in New Orleans IIRC).
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't "infringe" on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they? What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a truly scary "finding" that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is Congresses power to tax. (At the federal level a good number of firearms cases are on charges of failing to file and or pay the class 2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).
Please document this assertion. 1/2 is just plain *wrong*. The tax issues are restrictive, but not ablating, i.e., if you can afford the tax, then, *in theory*, you have no problem. I am talking about totally [2A] destructive laws, such as felons losing their RIGHT to ownership of firearms, civilians losing their RIGHT to own "assault weapons" (interesting note: it is still legal to collect missiles, but not certain types of rifles - the idiocy continues).
Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement? > > Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
I understand "shall not", it's the "infringed" I'm asking about.
Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require firearms manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning?
Yes. Period.
Whether the free market can provide this or not is orthagonal to the question.
No it is not: it is directly on point. There is NO constituional basis for the government to be able to regulate firearms. Period. Whether for "good", "bad", or indifferent. There is a very clear constitutional mandate that any and all firearms be available to "the people" - period. Any infringement, even if it is "for my own good" is unconstituional on it's face.
Let's get even finer. > >> Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions on what does and doesn't fall into "protected speech" (or even whether there is a distinction there to be made?) See above: it is by definition unavoidable.
There are a lot of things that in a society are unavoidable. The question is whether those things should be encouraged or discouraged.
My contention is that encouraging a LEO to decide for himself whether a law is constitutional or not is both wrong, and counter productive.
Again, returning to the oath of office taken by LEOs: their FIRST responsibility is to defend the CONSTITUTION. Not to follow orders. You want mindless droids enforcing laws, you get the kind of defacto police state we are living in now. You *should* be looking for THINKING *humans* to be filling this position.
It's happened in Chicago, and worse (see below).
There are at least 3 states a law can be in vis-a-vis constitutionality:
(1) Adjudged unconstitutional. (2) Adjudged constitutional. (3) Not adjudged relative to it's constitutionality.
Irrelevent. We are not discussing abstract legal theory, we are discussing factual implementation.
Factual implementation, outside of dot-coms, should descend from theory.
This is a nice academic pretence, but you are now dealing with The Real World (tm). Things like the abstract "Reasonable Man" and "Common Good", and the thousands of other interjections you could assert here, simply do not apply. Save this shit for Philosophy Club. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them on how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected {speech, action}. If they did not use this "ability", they would have to arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
knew) committed an act that violated the law.
You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity models.
In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime. Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of putting it.
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with, there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder, drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they enforce. Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in questionable areas (1st and 2nd).
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in New Orleans IIRC).
Interesting "rumor" on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what if he'd heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it that one of the judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was mentioned) decision.
Well, no. See, the same constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate interstate trade, so as long as they don't "infringe" on the right, they have a wide latitude to set standards etc. Or do they? What are the limits of that particular clause?
Virtually the entire 2A ablating federal infrastructure is based on a truly scary "finding" that *any* firearm is the product of Intertate Commerce, regardless if it has been out of the state in which it was
Well, no. Only about 1/2 of the ablating. The other half is Congresses power to tax. (At the federal level a good number of firearms cases are on charges of failing to file and or pay the class 2 or 3 weapons tax stamp).
Please document this assertion. 1/2 is just plain *wrong*. The tax issues are restrictive, but not ablating, i.e., if you can afford the tax, then, *in theory*, you have no problem. I am talking about totally [2A] destructive laws, such as felons losing their RIGHT to ownership of firearms, civilians losing their RIGHT to own "assault weapons" (interesting note: it is still legal to collect missiles, but not certain types of rifles - the idiocy continues).
Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own <x>". Then doesn't provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp. A portion (and I don't have the percentages, this comes from discussions with a local attorney active in Firearms Rights) of the firearms cases prosecuted at the federal level are prosecuted as tax violations. It is (allegedly) done this way to avoid second amendment issues. Since the Government has the constitutional power to tax, there is no problem. It may not be 1/2 of all cases, but it's 1/2 of all justifications, and a signigificant number of cases.
> Further more, what is *constitutionally* an infringement? > > Als at the risk of going Choation, what part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
I understand "shall not", it's the "infringed" I'm asking about.
Is it *really* an infringement on your rights to require firearms manufacturers to meet reasonable standards of functioning?
Yes. Period.
Now who's being Choatian?
Whether the free market can provide this or not is orthagonal to the question.
No it is not: it is directly on point. There is NO constituional basis for the government to be able to regulate firearms. Period. Whether for "good", "bad", or indifferent. There is a very clear constitutional mandate that any and all firearms be available to "the people" - period. Any infringement, even if it is "for my own good" is unconstituional on it's face.
Nonsense. The second prevents *infringement* of the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't prevent *regulation*. It doesn't prohibit the setting of standards, or any one of a number of piddly little regulations. There is no mandate that any and all firearms be available. The second amendment was intended to insure that the citizens had the tools at their disposal to defend themselves and their land/town/city/state, and to provide a (somewhat final) check against a tyrannical government forming. It is not necessarily "any and all" firearms, just firearms that would be useful for those things (which amounts effectively to almost all firearms). It would probably not be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to insist that all arms produced or imported meet reliability standards so that anything you buy *can* be used such. Look at voting--it is perfectly legal and constitutional in most places to force someone to register before voting. To provide "is a real person" type ID.
Let's get even finer. > >> Do you *really* want your local beat cop to be making decisions on what does and doesn't fall into "protected speech" (or even whether there is a distinction there to be made?) See above: it is by definition unavoidable.
There are a lot of things that in a society are unavoidable. The question is whether those things should be encouraged or discouraged.
My contention is that encouraging a LEO to decide for himself whether a law is constitutional or not is both wrong, and counter productive.
Again, returning to the oath of office taken by LEOs: their FIRST responsibility is to defend the CONSTITUTION. Not to follow orders. You want mindless droids enforcing laws, you get the kind of defacto police state we are living in now. You *should* be looking for THINKING *humans* to be filling this position.
Oh, I do want thinking humans in most positions. Given a choice, I'd rather have thinking people in the Legislature, where they laws they write protect our rights. Right? (sorry). I also want police who are going to provide--as much as possible--for uniform enforcement of the laws. There are times and places where an officer has to worry about whether his actions are going to violate someones rights--usually 4th and 5th (search and seizure, as well as self-incrimination) but it is my contention that this is only in *how* the laws are enforced, not *which* laws.
It's happened in Chicago, and worse (see below).
There are at least 3 states a law can be in vis-a-vis constitutionality:
(1) Adjudged unconstitutional. (2) Adjudged constitutional. (3) Not adjudged relative to it's constitutionality.
Irrelevent. We are not discussing abstract legal theory, we are discussing factual implementation.
Factual implementation, outside of dot-coms, should descend from theory.
This is a nice academic pretence, but you are now dealing with The Real World (tm). Things like the abstract "Reasonable Man" and "Common Good", and the thousands of other interjections you could assert here, simply do not apply. Save this shit for Philosophy Club.
I never claimed that what I am arguing *is* real world, only that it *should* be.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Petro" <petro@bounty.org> To: <measl@mfn.org>; <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them
on
how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected {speech, action}. If they did not use this "ability", they would have to arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or knew) committed an act that violated the law.
You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity models.
In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime.
Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with,
Uh, no. If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an attorney, and.... putting it. You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be judged ex post. The terms you are grappling to find are "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." The point you are missing is that typically the only downside for the officer in making an "illegal arrest" is that the case will get tossed. Big deal. Probable cause to arrest exists where facts and circumstances within officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed; it is not necessary that the officer possess knowledge of acts sufficient to establish guilt, but more than mere suspicion is required. I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular. Sheesh, at least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something. It's common respect for the rest of the list members. there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder, drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they enforce. There are constitutional issues in every interaction with police and citizens. The question is if they are raised or significant enough to be regarded in the judicial system. Probable cause to make an arrest is but one of the issues that is triggered on every arrest or other police action.
Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in questionable areas (1st and 2nd).
And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a ruling. Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in New Orleans IIRC).
Interesting "rumor" on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what if he'd heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it
Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own <x>". Then doesn't
To you the only "questionable" areas are the 1st and 2nd amendments? Interesting. that one of the judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was mentioned) decision. [Firearms rights are being taken away by the power to tax... The power to tax is the power to destroy... McCulloch v. Maryland blah blah blah] provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp. Chicago does this. It requires registration for all handguns. No registrations have been issued since the early 70s or so. It's been challenged over and over. It stands. And will. The rest of this drivel deleted. (Is Detweiller back or what? If so, he's violating his consent decree).
At 10:29 AM -0700 7/30/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
----- Original Message -----
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity models.
In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime.
Uh, no.
If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an attorney, and....
As a lawyer (and I strongly suspect based on your writing here over the years that you're not this kind of lawyer) if someone came to you wanting to sue the NYPD over whatever the legalese is for "false imprisonment" and had documents to prove that they'd been arrested for wearing purple oxfords on blue flue tuesday, would you buy a new BMW or a Mercedes?
Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of putting it.
You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be judged ex post. The terms you are grappling to find are "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." The point you are missing is that typically the only downside for the officer in making an "illegal arrest" is that the case will get tossed. Big deal.
I was trying to stay away from "terms of art" where possible, since while I know what the english words "reasonable suspicion" mean, I know they are also used in a lot of cop and lawyer shows, as well as by cops and lawyers, therefore they are overloaded terms and not always in scope.
I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular. Sheesh, at least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something. It's common respect for the rest of the list members.
I am seriously thinking about Law School, and several times during this "conversation" I have made it clear that (1) I am not a lawyer. (2) I am not speaking from a position of educated authority. I am speaking from *my* reading of the Constitution and discussions with lawyers and Cops, as well as other stuff I've read and thought about over the years. I've made it evident that I do not believe this is the way things *are*, but rather what *I* believe would work better.
Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get involved in constitutional issues.
If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of you with a clueclub. By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with, there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder, drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they enforce.
There are constitutional issues in every interaction with police and citizens. The question is if they are raised or significant enough to be regarded in the judicial system. Probable cause to make an arrest is but one of the issues that is triggered on every arrest or other police action.
In any interaction between the long arm of the law and the citizenry, there is the how, and the why. You are talking about how the police interact with the citizenry, which is mostly 4th (search, seizure, cause for warrants etc), 5th (due process, double jeopardy), 6th (speedy public trial etc). These all come into effect (usually) after there is suspicion that a crime has been committed (absent "fishing expeditions"). We were talking about the why of the interaction, whether LEOs should decide for themselves what laws were constitutional and should be enforced.
Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in questionable areas (1st and 2nd).
To you the only "questionable" areas are the 1st and 2nd amendments? Interesting.
Within the constraints of the discussion, yes. There are constitutional questions in law enforcement about the 4th, 5th, and 6th, but these are procedural issues, and procedural laws. I see many laws that are questionable under the 1st and 2nd (via the 14th) but I see few laws that can be violated outside the court system that are questionable under the 4th, 5th, and 6th. To my limited knowledge there has been very few cases (I've heard of one, but I admit to not having done the research) dealing with the 3rd, the 7th deals with Civil courts (although the 20 dollar limit is probably a little low these days), the 8th is only in effect after you've been arrested. The 9th and 10th do not enumerate specific rights, only state that there are rights not listed, and that those belong to the states and the people. State constitutions are another matter, and I'll admit that until I wrote this sentence I hadn't even been thinking about them. So yeah, in the context of whether LEOs should decide for themselves which laws are constitutional, and hence enforceable, it's really only the 1st and 2nd that cause most of the questions.
Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own <x>". Then doesn't provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp.
Chicago does this. It requires registration for all handguns. No registrations have been issued since the early 70s or so. It's been challenged over and over. It stands. And will.
Really? You mean *that's* why I couldn't find a gun store in Chicago the whole 7 years I lived there? And it was the early 80s during the Byrne administration that new firearms registrations were halted (although rumor had it that if you knew the right people, or had a good enough reason you could still get one registered. Of course, that is normal for Chicago). Registration started in 1968, the law stoping registration apparently came into effect in 1982. http://user.mc.net/~chevelle/handgunbans.htm
The rest of this drivel deleted. (Is Detweiller back or what? If so, he's violating his consent decree).
At 10:29 AM -0700 7/30/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
----- Original Message -----
At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote: You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs. Only civilians are held to the personal knowledge standard. Leos are held to profoundly lower
models.
In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime.
Uh, no.
If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for
----- Original Message ----- From: "Petro" <petro@bounty.org> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:38 AM Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime probablity the
kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an attorney, and....
As a lawyer (and I strongly suspect based on your writing here over the years that you're not this kind of lawyer) if someone came to you wanting to sue the NYPD over whatever the legalese is for "false imprisonment" and had documents to prove that they'd been arrested for wearing purple oxfords on blue flue tuesday, would you buy a new BMW or a Mercedes?
Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of putting it.
You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be judged ex post. The terms you are grappling to find are "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." The point you are missing is that typically the only downside for the officer in making an "illegal arrest" is that the case will get tossed. Big deal.
I was trying to stay away from "terms of art" where possible, since while I know what the english words "reasonable suspicion" mean, I know they are also used in a lot of cop and lawyer shows, as well as by cops and lawyers,
Neither, because that case would be unlikely to net much more than $10,000 in settlement. Hell, the guy who was violated with a baton and has effectively no colon anymore got a measely few million from the city. I have done white collar crime work, some related to forced disclosures, but false imprisonment cases are usually civil cases against private defendants. It's very hard to get a jurisdiction to pay for "injusticies" committed where duly sworn law enforcement officials were acting in an official capacity. therefore they are overloaded terms and not always in scope. Granted.
I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular. Sheesh,
least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something. It's common respect for the rest of the list members.
I am seriously thinking about Law School, and several times during this "conversation" I have made it clear that (1) I am not a lawyer. (2) I am not speaking from a position of educated authority. I am speaking from *my* reading of the Constitution and discussions with lawyers and Cops, as well as other stuff I've read and thought about over the years. I've made it evident
Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own <x>". Then doesn't provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp.
Chicago does this. It requires registration for all handguns. No registrations have been issued since the early 70s or so. It's been challenged over and over. It stands. And will.
Really? You mean *that's* why I couldn't find a gun store in Chicago the whole 7 years I lived there?
And it was the early 80s during the Byrne administration that new firearms registrations were halted (although rumor had it that if you knew the right
at that I do not believe this is the way things *are*, but rather what *I* believe would work better. You overestimate the average contextual awareness level of the typical cypherpunk reader I think. [...] people, or had a good enough reason you could still get one registered. Of course, that is normal for Chicago). Registration started in 1968, the law stoping registration apparently came into effect in 1982. http://user.mc.net/~chevelle/handgunbans.htm I stand corrected. I had confused the 1968 date with the cesasation of registration issuances.
If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for
Black Unicorn wrote: the
kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an attorney, and....
Yes, yes, and the claim that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, are what makes the United States a nation of laws less abided, less understood, less respected. Tim May's daily law-breaking is normal. Even lawyers do it. All believing they will never be targeted. But with 1 out of 8 US persons working in the law industry, and 1 out of 100 incarcerated, most of the population will one day will suffer forfeiture, do community service, make restitution, be on probation, wear tracking devices, be snooped on, hairy-eyeballed at a weekly upcoming case schedule, or just grouped into a conspiracy for being churned throught the justice system as a re-education in responsible citizenship. If you think you can avoid this re-education then you probably consider yourself above or outside the law, under the radar, unnoticeable, not worth the effort of authorities, never done anything illegal except a few things nobody knows about, or, best of all, a member of a privileged caste which is protected by a higher law for law enforcers-- like, a journalist, or a priest, or a doctor, or a TLA herding pre-defined miscreants toward the chute. That spooked miscreants stampede or mavericks hook a gut, well, that's just in guns and ammo. Watch what those dozen new CHIP units spook in the course of trying to keep up with runaway technology. Indictments for trailing edge tech is what is meant by "the kind of shoes you're wearing." Herding miscreants, avoiding the hard crimes committed at justice HQs, in order to not offend Boss, Congress, Stockholders, Voters. Mueller is likely to be worse than Freeh in the sense that he will favor what he thinks are his strengths and ignore his weaknesses -- hoping to mollify those above him doing the same, that is, never ever investigate the overseers, whisper secrets and provide perks to those who "watch the watchers."
I'm not sure which of the >s are Petro, Schliesser, Measl, or others,
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
I think this was Petro, who I think was a Marine, and therefore should know better. The Uniform Code of Military Justice *requires* soldiers to refuse to obey illegal orders. Police generally are required to uphold the Constitution, and no amount of weaseling about "I'm not the departmental legal counsel, I'm the guy with the blue suit" relieves them of that responsibility. There are substantial differences between these two situations - usually an illegal order to a soldier involves shooting people, while an unconstitutional action by a cop involves arresting people or serving warrants on them, which can be argued about later, so it's far more critical that a soldier individually do the right thing, even though an inappropriate refusal by a soldier can result in lots of dead people, while an incorrect refusal or inaction by a cop only results in somebody not getting arrested or the city's insurance company paying a bunch of lawyers for a lawsuit.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
It's both. And enforcement of laws typically has a huge latitude - the DMCA doesn't say anything about refusing to give Dmitri a bail hearing, or whether to take every piece of electronics in a "hacker's" house. The "I know it when I see it" test for obscenity is very broad. And the property-forfeiture-for-drugs laws may allow police to steal anything nailed down or not if they think they can make a case that there might have been drugs around that the victim won't have the resources to successfully defend against, but don't require it, and enforcement seems suspiciously correlated with which police departments make a profit from doing it.
In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it. That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more.
Certainly Janet Reno and Louis Freeh were a bad lot and we're well rid of them, but Ashcroft's belief in the Constitution certainly appears not to include the First Amendment. We'll see how much he likes the others as he goes along.
My point, which I obviously did not make clearly enough, is that Ashcroft appears, unlike at least his immediate predecessor, to believe in rule of law, rather than rule by force.
Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that "clearly" violate the constitution.
A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied.
I strongly disagree. Let's start with a terminology rant - Cops used to call themselves "peace officers". Sure, it was propaganda, but the point is that they're there to "serve and protect" (at least for the upper classes.) Or they claimed they were in the "Justice" business. Now they're calling themselves "Law Enforcement", trying to use the culture's leftover respect for "law" as a protection of individual rights, rather than its current meaning of "whatever the legislature writes", whether that's special-interest support like the DMCA or religious/cultural preferences like the laws against some drugs, and trying to use this to justify the use of however much force it takes to force people to obey. No different from what an invading army does. If a cop believes that a law is unconstitutional or unjust, then if anything his job is not to resign and let someone else enforce it, but to prevent its enforcement, at least through inaction if not through active reorganization of the police force. If equal application of the law has a part to play here, it's in getting other cops NOT to impose injustice, not in copping out by imposing injustice himself or quitting.
That may be less than clear, let me try it another way:
It was clear, just wrong - but go ahead :-)
One of the fundamental features of a society that is built around the concept of "rule of law" is that the law is knowable by the people, and that they have a reasonable expectation of the consequences should they break that law. When you have a situation where you give carte blanche to LEOs to decide for themselves what is constitutional, you violate that. What one LEO may decide is perfectly constitutional, another may believe is unconstitutional resulting in even more uneven application of the law than we have today.
[Example 1 - people don't know if they'll be pulled over by Good Cop or Bad Cop, especially near town border.] [Example 2 - Good Sheriff replaced by Officer Hardass. ] It's still wrong to enforce unjust laws, and also to enforce unconstitutional ones. If a law's on the books, the citizens have to decide individually whether to obey them. The examples given involved concealed handguns and searches for same - if police are doing unconstitutional searches, there are problems anyway. Problems with differing laws at borders are difficult anyway, but having a location where laws are enforced less strictly is certainly no risk for the neighbors, and we've already got enough laws that you're probably violating some of them without even realizing it. A friend of mine has a button that says "if the public were required to *know* all the laws, and not merely to obey them, there'd be a revolution tomorrow"....
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
I'm not sure which of the >s are Petro, Schliesser, Measl, or others,
These are not me (Measl), nor Schilesser, so that only leaves Petro :-) Thank you Bill, for a much clearer statement of what I was *trying* to impart. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysdmin@mfn.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
I think this was Petro, who I think was a Marine, and therefore should know better. The Uniform Code of Military Justice *requires* soldiers to refuse to obey illegal orders. Police generally are required to uphold the Constitution, and no amount of weaseling about "I'm not the departmental legal counsel, I'm the guy with the blue suit" relieves them of that responsibility. There are substantial differences between these two situations - usually an illegal order to a soldier involves shooting people, while an unconstitutional action by a cop involves arresting people or serving warrants on them, which can be argued about later, so it's far more critical that a soldier individually do the right thing, even though an inappropriate refusal by a soldier can result in lots of dead people, while an incorrect refusal or inaction by a cop only results in somebody not getting arrested or the city's insurance company paying a bunch of lawyers for a lawsuit.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
It's both. And enforcement of laws typically has a huge latitude - the DMCA doesn't say anything about refusing to give Dmitri a bail hearing, or whether to take every piece of electronics in a "hacker's" house. The "I know it when I see it" test for obscenity is very broad. And the property-forfeiture-for-drugs laws may allow police to steal anything nailed down or not if they think they can make a case that there might have been drugs around that the victim won't have the resources to successfully defend against, but don't require it, and enforcement seems suspiciously correlated with which police departments make a profit from doing it.
In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to) in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many or most on this list, but he believes in it. That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more.
Certainly Janet Reno and Louis Freeh were a bad lot and we're well rid of them, but Ashcroft's belief in the Constitution certainly appears not to include the First Amendment. We'll see how much he likes the others as he goes along.
My point, which I obviously did not make clearly enough, is that Ashcroft appears, unlike at least his immediate predecessor, to believe in rule of law, rather than rule by force.
Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that "clearly" violate the constitution.
A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to be equally applied.
I strongly disagree. Let's start with a terminology rant - Cops used to call themselves "peace officers". Sure, it was propaganda, but the point is that they're there to "serve and protect" (at least for the upper classes.) Or they claimed they were in the "Justice" business. Now they're calling themselves "Law Enforcement", trying to use the culture's leftover respect for "law" as a protection of individual rights, rather than its current meaning of "whatever the legislature writes", whether that's special-interest support like the DMCA or religious/cultural preferences like the laws against some drugs, and trying to use this to justify the use of however much force it takes to force people to obey. No different from what an invading army does.
If a cop believes that a law is unconstitutional or unjust, then if anything his job is not to resign and let someone else enforce it, but to prevent its enforcement, at least through inaction if not through active reorganization of the police force. If equal application of the law has a part to play here, it's in getting other cops NOT to impose injustice, not in copping out by imposing injustice himself or quitting.
That may be less than clear, let me try it another way:
It was clear, just wrong - but go ahead :-)
One of the fundamental features of a society that is built around the concept of "rule of law" is that the law is knowable by the people, and that they have a reasonable expectation of the consequences should they break that law. When you have a situation where you give carte blanche to LEOs to decide for themselves what is constitutional, you violate that. What one LEO may decide is perfectly constitutional, another may believe is unconstitutional resulting in even more uneven application of the law than we have today.
[Example 1 - people don't know if they'll be pulled over by Good Cop or Bad Cop, especially near town border.] [Example 2 - Good Sheriff replaced by Officer Hardass. ]
It's still wrong to enforce unjust laws, and also to enforce unconstitutional ones. If a law's on the books, the citizens have to decide individually whether to obey them. The examples given involved concealed handguns and searches for same - if police are doing unconstitutional searches, there are problems anyway. Problems with differing laws at borders are difficult anyway, but having a location where laws are enforced less strictly is certainly no risk for the neighbors, and we've already got enough laws that you're probably violating some of them without even realizing it.
A friend of mine has a button that says "if the public were required to *know* all the laws, and not merely to obey them, there'd be a revolution tomorrow"....
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs to enforce all laws that are on the books.
If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the legislature and the Executive branch.
And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right...
If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box.
The question has nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States--it has to do with whether or not an individual is justified in acting in the name of "just doing my job" or "just following orders". I would suggest that LEAs are definitely at fault for executing and enforcing laws that are unjust. (I in no way intend to imply that the blame should be steered away from the originators, who are, as you point out, the legislature and executive branch. Nor am I making a recommendation as to what determines the fabric of "justice", although that would be an interesting topic for dicsussion.) Your assumption that the U.S. Constitution and system of Elections have anything to do with granting a mandate of rule to the law enforcement community is flawed. They don't even, for what it matters, grant a true mandate to the rest of the U.S. government anymore, with occasional exception. --bensons
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:18:25PM -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
Remember what I told you: "If you think Clinton was dismal, you're going to find out what dismal *is*, during a Bush administration."
This is too simplistic.
[And Matt's reply is: They're both dismal.]
This is better. The truth is that they're dismal in different areas. We may not have a Waco under Ashcroft, and he may be mildly better on 2A rights, and he may not have same weird fixations that Reno did. But the obscenity "crackdown" is coming, that's for sure, and we'll have plenty more to complain about int he next year or so. Also, on the Sklyarov issue, it's a mistake to believe there's any substantial difference in the major parties. Clinton signed the DMCA with the appropriate fanfare; a motion to reconsider the DMCA in the House was tabled *without objection* and the DMCA was agreed to in the Senate *without objection* by unanimous consent. This was not a hotly-debated law, folks. Anyone who thinks there's a difference between the two major parties on this issue -- and I'm not saying Matt does, of course -- should get over it. -Declan
At 12:19 PM -0400 7/21/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
This was not a hotly-debated law, folks. Anyone who thinks there's a difference between the two major parties on this issue -- and I'm not saying Matt does, of course -- should get over it.
-Declan
That is correct. There is little difference. Just continuations of the police state. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
Matthew Gaylor wrote:
There is little difference [between the two major parties]. Just continuations of the police state.
Last night, I attended a talk by science fiction writer and 2nd amendment activist, J. Neil Schulman. To distinguish between the two major parties, he refers to them as the "Mommy" party and the "Daddy" party. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which parties they are. S a n d y
Matt, here's something you might be interested in (as might cpunx). --Declan JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES FUNDS TO 26 STATES FOR INFORMATION SHARING INITIATIVES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BJA Monday, July 23, 2001 202/307-0703 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES FUNDS TO 26 STATES FOR INFORMATION SHARING INITIATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C.-- Justice Department grants to 26 states totaling more than $16 million will help them share information across jurisdictional and criminal justice system component lines and lead to improving the way they do business. The funds will help states link key information systems that include crime and offender information that will lead to better sentencing decisions, enhanced public safety and other benefits derived from more comprehensive, better coordinated criminal justice information systems. "For too long, the different arms of the criminal justice system at the federal, state, and local levels have not known what the others were doing," said Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lou Leary. "By helping law enforcement, courts, probation and parole agencies, and other components of the criminal justice system to more effectively share information, we will exponentially enhance public safety." The grants are being made under a program authorized by the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998-more commonly referred to as CITA. The program is being administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of OJP, in cooperation with the National Governors' Association's Center for Best Practices. (MORE) -2- In Fiscal Year 2000, BJA and NGA's Center for Best Practices provided Information Integration program planning grants of $25,000 to 42 states and hosted a series of information integration workshops that were attended by representatives of state implementation teams from 45 states. These 26 grants will allow selected states to build on that work and lay the groundwork for future national information integration efforts. "Rapid advances in technology have allowed police, prosecutors, courts, and corrections to build impressive information systems," said Leary. "The key is to allow these systems to share information. Judges who have reliable up-to-date arrest records will be able to make better sentencing decisions. In turn, police who have complete information about outstanding warrants and criminal histories will be in a better position to detain dangerous criminals, who do not belong back on the street." The projects being funded with the grants being announced today range from $40,000 to $1 million initiatives. The projects will last between 12 and 24 months and must contribute directly to improving information sharing among all or some of the law enforcement and criminal justice agencies at the state and local levels. Additional information about BJA is available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja> Additional information about NGA's Center for Best Practices is available at: www.nga.org/center <http://www.nga.org/center> # # # BJA 01-164 After Hours Contact: Doug Johnson 202/353-5610 (cell) Office of Justice Programs (OJP) BJA/NGA FY 2001 Justice Information Technology Integration Implementation Project State Grantee Award Amount Contact Phone AZ Arizona Criminal Justice Commission $ 230,000 Michael D. Branham 602/728-0752 AR Arkansas Integrated Justice Information System Coordinating Council $ 910,563 Brenda Barber 501/682-0053 CO Colorado Department of Public Safety $ 700,000 C. Suzanne Menncer 303/239-4398 CT The State of Connecticut $ 705,000 Theron Schnure 860/418-6340 FL Florida Technology Office $1,000,000 Roy Cales 850/410-4777 HI State of Hawaii $1,000,000 Carla T. Poirier 808/586-5330 IL State of Illinois $ 973,660 Matt Bettenhausen 312/814-2121 KS Kansas Bureau of Investigation $ 239,000 Charles W. Sexson 785/296-8200 KY Commonwealth of Kentucky $1,000,000 Aldona Valicenti 502/564-1201 MD Maryland Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board $ 460,352 Stewart Simms 410/339-5000 MA Massachusetts Office of Public Safety $ 850,000 Jane Perlov 617/727-7775 MI Michigan Department of State Police $ 750,000 Nancy Becker 517/336-6641 MO State of Missouri $ 510,815 Gerry Wethington 573/526-7741 MT Montana Department of Justice $ 40,000 Wulbur Rehmann 406/444-6194 NE State of Nebraska $ 336,200 Michael Overton 402/471-3992 NJ New Jersey Dept. of Law and Public Safety $ 350,000 Steven Talpas 609/984-0634 State Grantee Award Amount Contact Phone NM Supreme Court of New Mexico $ 800,000 Bob Stafford 505/476-0400 NY New York Division of Criminal Justice Services $ 757,600 Clyde Deweese 518/485-2295 NC State of North Carolina $ 600,000 Robert Brinson 919/716-3501 ND State of North Dakota $ 310,000 Nancy Walz 701/328-1991 PA Pennsylvania Justice Network $ 795,000 Linda Rosenberg 717/705-0760 RI Rhode Island Justice Commission $ 150,000 Joseph Smith 401/222-2620 TN Tennessee Office for Criminal Justice Programs $1,000,000 Pat Dishman 615/741-8277 UT Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice $ 650,000 Jennifer Hemingway 801/538-1055 WA Office of Financial Management $ 495,000 Gary Robinson 360/902-0528 WI State of Wisconsin $ 739,365 Annette Cruz 608/266-1736
participants (11)
-
Benson Schliesser -
Bill Stewart -
Black Unicorn -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Matthew Gaylor -
measl＠mfn.org -
Petro -
Petro -
Sandy Sandfort