Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:12:18 PM
Dear Representative:
The fourth amendment requires a warrant backed by evidence and a judge's approval before the police are permitted to seize any person or property, make any arrests, or even enter anybodies' home. Presumably some time is also given for the warrant to be read and lawyers called. The ONLY function of the fourth amendment is to protect citizens from over-zealous cops.
The fourth amendment can only be only be altered by a constitutional convention
requiring a two-thirds majority of the states, the house and the senate.
Yet the police are given the power to decide whether or not it should be
upheld! Ha! Police, the very people the fourth amendment is designed to
restrain, are the people that can decide whether or not to uphold it.
Additionally, ARTICLE VI OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER Section 1. Constitution supreme law
of the state. -- This
Constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent
therewith shall be void. The general assembly shall pass all laws necessary to carry this Constitution
into effect. This means that NOBODY, especially the police have the authority
to over-ride the amendment IV of the constitution. Police are the very
people the fourth amendment is designed to restrain. The police especially
have NO constitutional right to violate amendment IV in any way!
Today, having a warrent served to the police vehicle by Fax is a simple
matter. Having it also delivered to the accused's lawyer is a simple matter.
Gaurding the house and the accused while the accused and his lawyer read
the warrent is also a simple matter. Today, more than ever before, Amendment
IV must be upheld.
People are being murdered, tortured, harrassed, unjustly imprisioned and
raped because amendment IV is violated by the very people that it seeks
to restrain!News Heading: Police reject candidate for being too intelligent
A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.
Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.
But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
He said: "This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test. The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Conclusion:
An IQ of 104 is very low. I have no friends with IQ’s that low. Yet approximately half of the police have IQ’s below 104! This government has given these police the power to decide when and where they should use the fourth amendment - the amendment whose sole purpose was to slow down over zealous police.
Please fight to regain our lost rights and establish more!
Friday, January 20, 2006 10:43:15 AM
Dear Representative:
Police Brutality is the violation of the most fundamental and absolutely
prerequisite human rights that are necessary for any democracy.
Without an ardently supported list of human rights (like the
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights), a simple majority could vote away
the rights of Indians, Jews, African Americans, Gypsies, and you. A simple majority could vote to take
property or life. Without human rights, a simple mob like majority could vote to enslave
a race or commit genocide. No patriot or student of democracy would be
so ridiculous as to even suggest that a democracy could be exist without
a list of human rights that they absolutely and reverently support.
I’ve seen the state violate ALL constitutional rights out of an idiotic obsession/compulsion to make their pigs/police and themselves right when they are wrong.
922 and the new seat belt law will increase police
brutality and the likelihood that I will move my family –here since 1630 - to
Australia, Canada, England or one of the Scandinavian countries (I will
outsource government)
Wendesday, January 18, 2006
STATE REPRESENTATIVE COLLEEN M. GARRY:
When small, I was stripped naked in front of a bunch of screaming high school girls. It was especially embarrassing because I hadn't reached puberty at the time. Who lead the assault? The assault was led by a person that later became Police Chief. No charges were ever filed.
Your proposed bill 922 aids and abets police brutality. We need a bill filed that makes it NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for the police to file A & B against a police officer.
The reason police brutality is horrendously rampant in Massachusetts is that the police automatically charge a person with A & B on a police office after they have maced the person. They do this to cover up the fact that they maced the person because he protested something.
Where I work in Connecticut, the dam has broken on police brutality. Night after night you see stories of police being convicted or charged with all types of crimes. In Connecticut, if a police officer maces and charges a person with A & B on a police officer, it makes the news. In Massachusetts, there is silence.
I have been charged with A & B on a police officer in Massachusetts. There have been five other bogus charges complete with mythical injuries of the cowardly, lying, and worthless Massachusetts cops.
Your bill will put more innocent people in jail.
Do you know what it is like to be charged with a FALSE crime that might destroy your entire life? Two years in jail and a false felony charge will ruin your life.
The police are the criminals. You must make it very difficult for a criminal policeman to fill A & B charges.
Dear Representative:
My family has been the victims of police brutality six times
in the last decade. My family has
committed NO crime other than to petition government, via the officer, for a
redress of grievances - the right afforded us by the first amendment. No officer has ever been threatened or
injured; yet my family has been assaulted, battered, and doused with pepper
spray even while in handcuffs and on knees.
No officer has ever been threatened or injured, yet my family has been
several times charged with the assault and battery of a police officer for
reflexive actions taken when assaulted by pepper spray and excessive
force. The charge of assault and
battery of a police officer carries a two-year sentence and is given for
touching police scum.
Police misconduct would be (and should be) discovered by government before citizens are exposed to it. Government doesn't have Quality Control . Government does not use the methods of Quality Control. Police Misconduct therefore persists. Where government to be run like industry, government would hire QC personal to test the police. These QC people should deliberately act defiantly towards police to test police training and performance.
The trouble is, it would be dangerous for government QC people to deliberately provoke the police. They could be maced, injured, or shot. They could die. This is why government needs to seek people that have experienced police brutality and make reports. Furthermore, government must avail themselves of these reports and correct the problems. To assume that police brutality does not exist, because it is ignored, is not only at the height of arrogance, but defines the word ignorance.
A young lady McDonalds employee in Roosevelt, Utah was strip searched by her manager. The manager was acting on the telephone instructions of someone posing as a police officer accusing the employee of theft. I saw her on '60 minutes' doing jumping jacks in the nude to comply with the alleged police officer.
I hate to see any American grovel and cower to the extent that they give up their rights to a person that alleging to be a police officer. The police I 've know as children did not have particularly noteworthy credentials for judgment before becoming a government lackey. I am happy my family doesn't grovel and cower to the police as this young woman did to an alleged police person. If this is the behavior that the courts want, then I don't want the courts. If this is the behavior that the police want, then I don't want the police. If this is the behavior that American governments want, then I don' t want American governments.
I am ever ashamed of the American government not withstanding the fact I would be even more ashamed of other governments. What shames me the most about American government is that given our freedom of speech, our one real freedom, and politicians still don't even detect police brutality; it isn't even on their radar screen!
John Quincy Adams, the former president from Massachusetts, argued all his life for the freedom of speech. Even given that freedom, politicians still don't even detect police brutality; it isn't even on their radar screen! Freedom of speech, the one real wonder of American government, doesn't matter if politicians are deaf!
LAW #1
Compliance with the Bill of Rights being necessary for the existence of a free state and in order to ensure compliance with amendments 1,4,5,6,8, and 10 it is necessary to ensure that frivolous charges, for the purpose of covering up misconduct, not be charged to any person. It is necessary to establish penalties and conditions to protect the state from this form of tyranny.
The penalties: Any civil litigation that finds that the police filed charges only to cover up police misconduct shall also pay for the plaintiff's attorney fees, expenses, losses and the whistle-blowing efforts of the falsely accused person (at $50 per hour).
It is not adequate to be a nation of law; even tyranny has laws. It is necessary to lawfully protect the rights of the people. A good nation is of the people, by the people and for the people. Conversely, a nation of the government, by the government, and for the government would obviously be tyranny. Predictably, if the only rights of a government are to protect the rights of the people, then that government will be a good government.
It is necessary to empower the people and courts sufficiently to stop police tyranny in the form of police brutality, excessive force and misconduct. The best method is to prevent the police from threatening to imprison political dissidents and those that seek to petition government for a redress of grievances with false arrest and imprisonment frequently with all rights denied or at least suspended.
There have been six incidents of police brutality in my family in the last decade. It is not a small matter. If I wasn't under a gag order, I could make your hair stand on end!
LAW #2
I am the guy that was requesting some way for a bill to be filed that would make it possible for a person working out of state, and living out of state four days a week, to obtain justice for small claims and cases of traffic violations since the law requires that a person be in court in order to file for a continuance. I don't get time off with pay. If I miss a day at work, I lose a day's pay. Consequently, it is impossible for me to get justice. Anyone can file a frivolous small claims suit against me and win since the law doesn't allow me to reschedule or continue without an in-person appearance. Since I get paid by the hour, I can't get justice.
Sincerely yours,
Administrator
PS. God gave the police a fantastic neuron to think with.
The representative replied that he had been a victim of police brutality himself and was working towards a solution to this problem.