The Economist's Cookbook

Well ... the 9th Circuit Court of appeals has done it
again. This is quite frightening. Courtesy of the DEA, of course.

So we can watch you from traffic or CCTV cams, we can track you through OnStar without your consent. They can now attach a GPS to your car and watch you where ever you go.

In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.

Really? So... trespassing no longer applies to others? Or is it only okay for agents of the state when they are watching you ... the little guy?

Today's Recipient is one Judge Thomas V. Gainer Jr. from Chicago.

Let's do a bit of looking at this shall we?

1.) Cop gets videotaped drinking shots and other beverages before getting into his car.
2.) Cop causes an accident resulting in two fatalites.
3.) Cop cleared of all charges.

Prosecutors made two attempts to prove that Ardelean did. After the two-vehicle fatal crash Nov. 22 in Roscoe Village, Ardelean was charged with misdemeanor DUI -- later upgraded to a felony. But those charges were dismissed when Cook County Judge Don Panarese ruled there was "no indication" Ardelean, who was off-duty at the time, was drunk. Prosecutors reinstated charges after saying they had a lengthy surveillance videotape showing Ardelean drinking five shots and other drinks at a North Side bar shortly before the crash.

Prosecutors also suggested in pretrial hearings that police the night of the crash turned a blind eye to Ardelean's intoxication. Among other things, he wasn't arrested or given a Breathalyzer until seven hours after the crash. But Gainer ruled in April that the supervising officer who ultimately made the arrest didn't have strong enough evidence to do so. Gainer's ruling also suppressed key blood-alcohol evidence.

So what does the judge in this case do? Well he throws out the video evidence of course.

Now I ask my readers, if one of us had pulled a stunt like this, what would have happened to us? More appropriately, what would have happened to one of us if we had killed two cops while driving drunk?

Remember kids: The cops are not on your side. They are not your friend. They are NOT there to "protect and serve" you.

It's been a while since I blogged about anything and I apologize for that. However, I'm back and this nomination of a very unattractive man/woman (I can't tell can you?) to the Supreme Court needs to be addressed.

1.) She/He does not support the limiting of the executive branch. In fact many of her papers have been in favor of expanding the currently absurd amounts of power that the executive branch already has in place. The focus should not be on expanding any of that power, but rather shackling it in an extreme way.

2.) She/He seems to support the Thurgood Marshall opinion that the court exists to protect the interests of the poor and disenfranchised in the country. This is not surprising given her clerkship under him, but should alarm anyone that expects her to expand the rights of the citizenry at large. The point of the Court is to ensure that the laws passed are Constitutional and in that way protect the average Joe from the power of the state. It shouldn't matter what the earnings of that Joe are. The simple fact is that justice for the sake of class position is nothing but a Randian nightmare.

3.) His/Her history of opinion on other issues are vague at best, though it does seem that she opposes partial-birth abortion (Yes, I'm on the fence about abortion in general, but that particular act is nothing short of barbaric.) Her view of gun rights will surely mirror those of the other left/left-leaning members of the court and as such, given the split on Heller should not affect the composition of the court in any meaningful way. So while it's not good news on that front, it's at least what any self-respecting Second Amendment advocate should have expected.

So in general it seems that we have an androgynous, left/left-leaning, class obsessed, pro-executive power female on her way into the highest court of the land. It's not good news, but it's exactly what we should have expected.

Wyoming fires a shot at D.C.

Off to a good start:

This week, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal signed House Joint Resolution 2 (HJ0002), claiming “sovereignty on behalf of the State of Wyoming and for its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.”

Oh ... this sounds nice:

“For decades we have shared increased frustration dealing with the federal government and its agencies. What started out as a leak in the erosion of state prerogative and independence has today turned into a flood. From wolf and grizzly bear management, to gun control, to endless regulation and unfunded mandates – the federal government has become far too powerful and intrusive.”

Yet I find this terribly confusing:

Freudenthal, a long-time Democrat, was previously a US attorney for the Clinton administration, and is currently serving his 2nd term as Governor of Wyoming. He endorsed Barack Obama for president and is commonly referred to as one of the most popular governors in the country. (Emphasis Mine)

I do wonder whether this is nothing more than normal political posturing to take advantage of public opinion. In fact given his track record I'm not confident that this Governor is actually serious. How the hell could you oppose Barack Obama on the basis of state sovereignty ESPECIALLY on the 2nd amendment when you knew EXACTLY where the asshole stood when he was running for the title of god.... I'm sorry I meant the presidency of the US, his followers thought he was running for god.

While I doubt the seriousness of this. It's a good sign. Let's hope WY follows though and tells the Federal Government to GTFO.

Copwatching (n):
1.) The act of observing law officers.
2.) The intent to keep your law officers honest by observing how they treat the public.

Article: http://www.wwl.com/Suit-claims-police-harass-journalists-and-bystande/6578605
Except that all over the country if you photograph, observe, or film a police officer doing anything you are most likely going to get your camera etc. taken from you as "evidence" where it will mysteriously come back to you without the relevant pictures or data on it.

The plaintiffs cite 11 other incidents since 2005 in which people were arrested or allegedly threatened while videotaping, photographing or merely observing police officers. The list of potential plaintiffs' witnesses includes Times-Picayune city editor Gordon Russell and Associated Press Television News producer Rich Matthews.

"It is a widely accepted and established custom for police officers to arrest or threaten people for filming them," said Brittany Barrient, a student attorney from the Tulane Law Clinic who represents Griffith and Learned.

Ladies and Gentlemen ... it is NOT just a few bad apples spoiling the barrel. There is an institutional problem that encourages thuggery, the rampant violation of rights, the "Only One" mentality (as David over at WoG) refers to it. We have a problem in your country and that is that no one in the justice and law enforcement system is accountable for their actions unless they go to such extremes as running over kindergartners with a tank!

But the article is interesting because it hales from the legally embattled state of LA. You know the state that just had a huge snafu over their officers shooting unarmed and nonthreatening people in a post-Katrina bloodbath.

I've met some good cops and serious props go to the cops that are a part of Oath-Keepers, but goddamn boys, some of your fellow members need to get a reality check.

...even if you didn't do anything that should put you on the list.

GA Supreme court upholds the position that even if you don't commit ANY sexual crime you are still going on the sex offenders list if you commit OTHER crimes like kidnapping, illegally detaining a minor, etc.
This quote is priceless:

Writing for a 5-2 majority, Justice Harold Melton rejected arguments that the provision, as applied to Rainer, was cruel and unusual punishment. Sex offender registry laws, Melton wrote, "are regulatory, not punitive, in nature."

I would like to advance a position that many may find controversial, all regulation is punitive in nature because it provides punishments if those regulations are not met. So I think that the distinction is a fuzzy one at best to differentiate between. Add to that this concept: All regulations inherently reduce the choice set of the individual without facing punishment. That reduction in choice set is in and of itself a punishment of a kind. (Please note I'm not arguing that laws against murder is a bad thing, merely that regulation reduces choice set or more rightly that regulation increases the costs of making certain choices, which outside of the protection of life, liberty, and property are a bad thing.)

Here is another gem:

"Because the registration requirements themselves do not constitute punishment, it is of no consequence whether or not one has committed an offense that is 'sexual' in nature before being required to register," Melton wrote.

Does that make any sense to anyone? We all know that those regulations of where you can live/work/go make life hell on people that are convicted of a sex offense. As a result I can very clearly say that those regulations ARE punitive.

Now please understand I'm not saying that real sex offenders deserve a pass, on the contrary they deserve to get it good and hard. however there are WAAAY too many people that have no business being on those lists. 18 year old hooks up with his 17 year old girlfriend, even if it's consensual, her parents can file charges anyway (this varies from state to state but documented cases exist of this kind of shit).

Come on GA, you can do better than this.