Secret spying, the Constitution
- Thread starter kathaksung
- Start date
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,845
- Reaction score
- 27
Far more likely than 'the government did 9/11'. Hmm, when even kathaksung doesn't believe in your conspiracy theory...kathaksung said:
"You have nothing to worry about unless you are guilty."Glirk Dient said:
Tell that to the Birmingham Six, or the couple-hundred people in Guantanamo that still haven't been charged. :|
K e r b e r o s
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, I'm not guilty, so nothing to worry about yet because I'm still here.
Once I get taken away in a Paddywagon, I'll be sure to tell you.kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
Glirk Dient said:
Democrats might have the same thought of you, so their room was intruded which finally led to Watergate scandal. Plame might have the same thought of you and her ID was exposed. Clinton might have same thought of you and he was impeached by a personal scandal. Probably you don't have a girl friend, you don't have a private life, you don't mind to reveal your bank account ..... because you think you did nothing wrong and have nothing to worry about. That's an slave's opinion. Your master gave you enough to eat, to live. And you work hard to defend him.
But US is a land of free. To keep your privacy is one of yur right. That's a freedom many people fight to death for. When founding father made the Constitution, they consider to protect people from government abusing. They know much more about the evil side of government power. The "you have nothing to worry if you did nothing wrong" is only a quibble.
Are you the one sent by these abusing government officials, or just a born slave?
Glirk Dient
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh no...did you just say I don't have a girlfriend which is why I am for this? I think im gonna go cry now.
What are we being restricted from doing? The only thing they are doing is listening to shady people to see if they are conspiring to do harm to others. In which case they have broken the law. I don't like the government listening to what I am saying...and I am glad they don't. I don't talk about blowing stuff up all the time so I am not gonna get labeled and therefor they won't listen to me. It isn't like they are listening to everyone and if you talk about doing something like protesting your gonna get taken to a "labor camp" in the middle of the night for being un patriotic. this is used to listen to terrorists to prevent another 9/11. If we could have listened to them and figured out their plans all of those people that died that day would be here.
We aren't losing any freedom...we aren't restricted from doing anything unless it is illegal, so them listening to us is just like a police officer sitting on the side of the road looking for people who are speeding, except the road is a telephone line now.
What are we being restricted from doing? The only thing they are doing is listening to shady people to see if they are conspiring to do harm to others. In which case they have broken the law. I don't like the government listening to what I am saying...and I am glad they don't. I don't talk about blowing stuff up all the time so I am not gonna get labeled and therefor they won't listen to me. It isn't like they are listening to everyone and if you talk about doing something like protesting your gonna get taken to a "labor camp" in the middle of the night for being un patriotic. this is used to listen to terrorists to prevent another 9/11. If we could have listened to them and figured out their plans all of those people that died that day would be here.
We aren't losing any freedom...we aren't restricted from doing anything unless it is illegal, so them listening to us is just like a police officer sitting on the side of the road looking for people who are speeding, except the road is a telephone line now.
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
What is freedom? It means not being watched when you are doing something.
What did you say? "Also you have nothing to worry about with them spying on you unless you are guilty of something."
Do you guarantee there is no corrupt government official? If so, why founding father made such a Constitution to protect public from unreasonable search and arrest? It means such power abusing is common and popular. We need to worry even we did nothing wrong.
Your opinion only represent part of corrupt government officials who are eager to peep others' privacy.
What did you say? "Also you have nothing to worry about with them spying on you unless you are guilty of something."
Do you guarantee there is no corrupt government official? If so, why founding father made such a Constitution to protect public from unreasonable search and arrest? It means such power abusing is common and popular. We need to worry even we did nothing wrong.
Your opinion only represent part of corrupt government officials who are eager to peep others' privacy.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
As a corrupt official in the Italian Government, I can assure you that I don't exist.
I wonder: why do you continually refuse to accept my offer of information?
I can answer any question you ask concerning government crimes.
I wonder: why do you continually refuse to accept my offer of information?
I can answer any question you ask concerning government crimes.
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)
Roberts ducked important questions Demo asked him in hearing. So at the end he is mostly a man of unknown to the people. This is a typical figure of D.O.J.: hide everything with a cover. Does everything in covert.
Is he a speculator? After he refuses to show his stand, he can later turn out to be red, or if necessary, to be blue. Or just a flip-flop. This is a typical figure of secret agent. They really have no interest in any side. They only favor what their master favors. So they have no opinion of their own.
He will be selected as the judge of Supreme Court. Because that's the choice of Inside Group. Bush is only a puppet to deliver the words. Demo Senators only played a little bit what opposition Party should do. They knew Roberts will take over the seat. All this is a drama.
But when you select a general, how can you know nothing of his opinion about war? (his excuse is he only can answer in specific battle) How can you select a CEO for the company who refuse to express his idea about economy?
When US politics develops to this point that an mostly unknown person can take such an important job, is this drama too ridiculous? Bush administration even sealed Roberts record from public.
Roberts is more likely a secret agent who will work for the Feds, (D.O.J.)
D.O.J. hurriedly sent Roberts to the seat of Chief Justice is for the framed case of September 24, I think. My case is the most important one for D.O.J. since I reveal the true face (crime) of them. To frame a case, they even sacrifice both directors of FBI and DEA in a secret deal in 2001.
On 5/10/2002, I wrote "65. Birthday Party on May 3 (5/10)", revealed there was an attempt framed case on me and my family on 5/3. Several days later, my tenant and a neighborhood suddenly left.(both were from China. see #85, 86) It was until three months later when newspaper reported Ashcroft had been rebuked by judge in May for cheating the court, I then knew I was under the surveillance by FISA warrant. When judge found they were cheated by Ashcroft and FBI, they cancelled the warrant. Two Chinese secret police, my tenant and a neighborhood, had to leave.
The surveillance recovered in November 2002 when D.O.J. claimed Patriot Act gave them such power. But how could they frame an innocent man without evidence? They still need evidence to carry out an arrest.
Since then, D.O.J. tried their best to "break" the wall of "share information from foreign intelligence" with "domestic criminal law enforcement". The recent "Pentagon's information about Atta" is such an effort.
This issue must have been passed into Supreme Court. I think, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had defended the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus he became the obstacle of D.O.J.. He had a cancer.
If Rehnquist's health condition was very bad, he would have resigned earlier. But he hadn't. That means he himself felt he was still OK for the job. His death was sudden. I think it was a controlled murder. I have said, "2. Control the death on will. They can make target getting sick by slow poison, once the death is necessary for Feds, what they have to do is just increase the dose, the target died to intelligence' demand without causing a suspicion." (186. Slow poison (12/6/03))
When I found there was another big framed case set up on 9/24, I revealed it on 9/2. (see "339. The September plot (9/2/05)") Next day, Chief Rehnquist died. Roberts is hurried to be nominated and said his confirmation is almost certain and will be in post in October. Because the framed case will break off on 9/24. D.O.J. needs a man of their own to guarantee the case can be set up by "sharing foreign intelligence information with domestic criminal law enforcement"
William Rehnquist's death and Roberts' nomination may signal the death of 4th Amendment that American people will lose the protection from "unreasonable search and arrest". US Justice will be ruled by an evil group.
(The 4th Amendment has been made to protect people from the "plant" of corruptive law enforcement force. That the warrant must based on evidence not the "plant". The "sharing information" low the standard to "suspicion" (foreign intelligence source) and made search and arrest possible based on "plant". see "335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05)")
Roberts ducked important questions Demo asked him in hearing. So at the end he is mostly a man of unknown to the people. This is a typical figure of D.O.J.: hide everything with a cover. Does everything in covert.
Is he a speculator? After he refuses to show his stand, he can later turn out to be red, or if necessary, to be blue. Or just a flip-flop. This is a typical figure of secret agent. They really have no interest in any side. They only favor what their master favors. So they have no opinion of their own.
He will be selected as the judge of Supreme Court. Because that's the choice of Inside Group. Bush is only a puppet to deliver the words. Demo Senators only played a little bit what opposition Party should do. They knew Roberts will take over the seat. All this is a drama.
But when you select a general, how can you know nothing of his opinion about war? (his excuse is he only can answer in specific battle) How can you select a CEO for the company who refuse to express his idea about economy?
When US politics develops to this point that an mostly unknown person can take such an important job, is this drama too ridiculous? Bush administration even sealed Roberts record from public.
Roberts is more likely a secret agent who will work for the Feds, (D.O.J.)
D.O.J. hurriedly sent Roberts to the seat of Chief Justice is for the framed case of September 24, I think. My case is the most important one for D.O.J. since I reveal the true face (crime) of them. To frame a case, they even sacrifice both directors of FBI and DEA in a secret deal in 2001.
On 5/10/2002, I wrote "65. Birthday Party on May 3 (5/10)", revealed there was an attempt framed case on me and my family on 5/3. Several days later, my tenant and a neighborhood suddenly left.(both were from China. see #85, 86) It was until three months later when newspaper reported Ashcroft had been rebuked by judge in May for cheating the court, I then knew I was under the surveillance by FISA warrant. When judge found they were cheated by Ashcroft and FBI, they cancelled the warrant. Two Chinese secret police, my tenant and a neighborhood, had to leave.
The surveillance recovered in November 2002 when D.O.J. claimed Patriot Act gave them such power. But how could they frame an innocent man without evidence? They still need evidence to carry out an arrest.
Since then, D.O.J. tried their best to "break" the wall of "share information from foreign intelligence" with "domestic criminal law enforcement". The recent "Pentagon's information about Atta" is such an effort.
This issue must have been passed into Supreme Court. I think, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had defended the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus he became the obstacle of D.O.J.. He had a cancer.
If Rehnquist's health condition was very bad, he would have resigned earlier. But he hadn't. That means he himself felt he was still OK for the job. His death was sudden. I think it was a controlled murder. I have said, "2. Control the death on will. They can make target getting sick by slow poison, once the death is necessary for Feds, what they have to do is just increase the dose, the target died to intelligence' demand without causing a suspicion." (186. Slow poison (12/6/03))
When I found there was another big framed case set up on 9/24, I revealed it on 9/2. (see "339. The September plot (9/2/05)") Next day, Chief Rehnquist died. Roberts is hurried to be nominated and said his confirmation is almost certain and will be in post in October. Because the framed case will break off on 9/24. D.O.J. needs a man of their own to guarantee the case can be set up by "sharing foreign intelligence information with domestic criminal law enforcement"
William Rehnquist's death and Roberts' nomination may signal the death of 4th Amendment that American people will lose the protection from "unreasonable search and arrest". US Justice will be ruled by an evil group.
(The 4th Amendment has been made to protect people from the "plant" of corruptive law enforcement force. That the warrant must based on evidence not the "plant". The "sharing information" low the standard to "suspicion" (foreign intelligence source) and made search and arrest possible based on "plant". see "335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05)")
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Inside Group = Hetairia
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
357. Another attack from D.O.J. (11/12/05)
There was an article in San Jose Mercury News on 11/9/05.
"Court debates privacy in searches by police
By stephen Henderson, Knight Ridder
Washington - The love lost between Scott and Janet Randolph worked to the advantage of police in summer 2001, when authorities investigating a domestic dispute between the two asked to search the couple's Georgia home.
Scott Randolph said no. His wife said yes, and police went ahead on her consent. Tuesday, the Supreme Court weighed whether the subsequent search - in which Janet Randolph led them to drugs that resulted in her husband's arrest - was unconstitutional.
The case is the latest in a long line of opportunities for the court to refine the scope of permissible searches under the fourth Amendment. But the question involved - how much privacy can anyone expect in a home they share with someone else - inspired a surprisingly animated debate among the justices. ......
The Georgia Supreme Court sided with Randolph, throwing out the drug evidence that was recovered during the search.
Randolph's position seemed to draw support from several justices, especially Sandra Day O'Connor, who emphasized that the court does not decide search cases by acknowledging shared property rights, but by determining what is socially acceptable. ....
Randolph's position also ran into harsh criticism from several justices, though. Chief Justice John G. Roberts suggested that when you decide to live with someone, you give up some rights to privacy."
I will say this is another effort of D.O.J. to encourage agent to commit an unreasonable search. In August when there was a wave to attack the wall of information sharing between foreign intelligence and domestic criminal case,(the real purpose is to bypass the fourth amendment and to low the standard of search and arrest for law enforcement agent) I had a feeling D.O.J. was going to attack the constitutional right for civilian. I wrote six articles about it. (see #335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05), 344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J.(9/18/05), 346. Police detain and DNA plant (10/2/05), 347. Abandon the Constitution (10/7/05), 348. "Witness" team (10/7/05), 350. Boy George and drug charge (10/12/05))
This case proved my worry was not uncalled for. If it passed in D.O.J.'s way, then it will not only damage the morality of a marriage, (will people since then to pre-sign a contract to prevent a possible hurt from their spouse before their marriage?) and will also destroy the last castle of their privacy - their own home.
This news also proves my accusation on the new Chief Justice - Roberts is true. I said in #344 that he is a secret agent of D.O.J.. His comment on this case proves he doesn't work to protect the civil right of the American people. He works for the interest of D.O.J..
There was an article in San Jose Mercury News on 11/9/05.
"Court debates privacy in searches by police
By stephen Henderson, Knight Ridder
Washington - The love lost between Scott and Janet Randolph worked to the advantage of police in summer 2001, when authorities investigating a domestic dispute between the two asked to search the couple's Georgia home.
Scott Randolph said no. His wife said yes, and police went ahead on her consent. Tuesday, the Supreme Court weighed whether the subsequent search - in which Janet Randolph led them to drugs that resulted in her husband's arrest - was unconstitutional.
The case is the latest in a long line of opportunities for the court to refine the scope of permissible searches under the fourth Amendment. But the question involved - how much privacy can anyone expect in a home they share with someone else - inspired a surprisingly animated debate among the justices. ......
The Georgia Supreme Court sided with Randolph, throwing out the drug evidence that was recovered during the search.
Randolph's position seemed to draw support from several justices, especially Sandra Day O'Connor, who emphasized that the court does not decide search cases by acknowledging shared property rights, but by determining what is socially acceptable. ....
Randolph's position also ran into harsh criticism from several justices, though. Chief Justice John G. Roberts suggested that when you decide to live with someone, you give up some rights to privacy."
I will say this is another effort of D.O.J. to encourage agent to commit an unreasonable search. In August when there was a wave to attack the wall of information sharing between foreign intelligence and domestic criminal case,(the real purpose is to bypass the fourth amendment and to low the standard of search and arrest for law enforcement agent) I had a feeling D.O.J. was going to attack the constitutional right for civilian. I wrote six articles about it. (see #335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05), 344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J.(9/18/05), 346. Police detain and DNA plant (10/2/05), 347. Abandon the Constitution (10/7/05), 348. "Witness" team (10/7/05), 350. Boy George and drug charge (10/12/05))
This case proved my worry was not uncalled for. If it passed in D.O.J.'s way, then it will not only damage the morality of a marriage, (will people since then to pre-sign a contract to prevent a possible hurt from their spouse before their marriage?) and will also destroy the last castle of their privacy - their own home.
This news also proves my accusation on the new Chief Justice - Roberts is true. I said in #344 that he is a secret agent of D.O.J.. His comment on this case proves he doesn't work to protect the civil right of the American people. He works for the interest of D.O.J..
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
Supreme Court splits in limiting police searches
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away, and the court's new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse.
Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man's wife invited them in. (Related: The court's opinion)
The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.
Roberts' dissent was unusually long — almost as long as the main opinion. He predicted "severe" consequences for women who invite police in only to be overruled by their husbands.
Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case, because he was not on the court when it was argued.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11959183/
This case proves what I said before. Roberts was hastilily sent to the seat of Chief Justice by D.O.J. The purpose was to rule for the benefit of D.O.J. in a framed case. To justify an unreasonable search and arrest. I predicted it on 9/18/05 in #344. (see previous post)
I also noticed the Randolph's case and thought it would be used as a demonstration to justify the unreasonable search. I particularly wrote #357 about this case on 11/12/05. (see previous post)
If Alito were there, he would go with Roberts. The two were sent there to justify unreasonable search by D.O.J..
The point is Feds(FBI, DEA) is good to provoke a conflict among family members. If this case goes to D.O.J.'s wish, then the last castle of one's privacy - your own home, means nothing. Every minute you can be searched. That's why a warrantless wiretap is so important to us. It's about the right of every citizen.
Here are two articles I wrote several months ago. I'll say my sense is very correct.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police without a warrant cannot search a home when one resident says to come in but another tells them to go away, and the court's new leader complained that the ruling could hamper investigations of domestic abuse.
Justices, in a 5-3 decision, said that police did not have the authority to enter and search the home of a small town Georgia lawyer even though the man's wife invited them in. (Related: The court's opinion)
The officers, who did not have a search warrant, found evidence of illegal drugs.
Roberts' dissent was unusually long — almost as long as the main opinion. He predicted "severe" consequences for women who invite police in only to be overruled by their husbands.
Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case, because he was not on the court when it was argued.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11959183/
This case proves what I said before. Roberts was hastilily sent to the seat of Chief Justice by D.O.J. The purpose was to rule for the benefit of D.O.J. in a framed case. To justify an unreasonable search and arrest. I predicted it on 9/18/05 in #344. (see previous post)
I also noticed the Randolph's case and thought it would be used as a demonstration to justify the unreasonable search. I particularly wrote #357 about this case on 11/12/05. (see previous post)
If Alito were there, he would go with Roberts. The two were sent there to justify unreasonable search by D.O.J..
The point is Feds(FBI, DEA) is good to provoke a conflict among family members. If this case goes to D.O.J.'s wish, then the last castle of one's privacy - your own home, means nothing. Every minute you can be searched. That's why a warrantless wiretap is so important to us. It's about the right of every citizen.
Here are two articles I wrote several months ago. I'll say my sense is very correct.
kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
350. Boy George and drug charge (10/12/05)
When I wrote that the recent tactic Feds using is to arrest in the name of drug charge by unreasonable search, there was a swift re-action.
"Boy George held on drug charges" (Mercury News, 10/9/05)
Police said Boy George called 911 to report a burglary on Friday(10/8) in New York."When police showed up, they found no evidence of a burglary but did find a small amount of cocaine near a computer in his apartment." Boy George was arrested on drug charge.
The case was a framed one, I think. It was a model demonstration to instruct how Feds to act on my case aggressively. In local TV news that night,(10/9) there were pictures that residents of San Jose complained how their houses were intruded by strangers. Next day on 10/10 in the evening, there was a knock at the door. It was a young man. I didn't answer it. He took a walk in my front yard then left.
In previous two attempted frame cases, Feds tried to disguise as contractors of roofing or garage door. I had a look at these two places but couldn't find anything suspicious. It's impossible to search the garage because too much stuff was piled up there. I once puzzled that how the disguised contractor could declare they finding the drug in concealed place where no others could see. Boy George's case solved my problem. George had no motive to tell a lie to call police to his home that led to his arrest. Once police were at his home, the rest words were all theirs. It's too convenient to say there was no evidence of burglary and they found drugs near George's computer.
What they need is to find an excuse that they are legally there. So the search and arrest would be reasonable. Roofing, garage door repair and burglary were all tactics to create an invitation. To make unreasonable search and arrest legal. Once they were there, the rest story was written by themselves.
To make sure they can finish the case as fast as they can, Feds also planned individual search and arrest. For which they prepared many potential "reliable witnesses". To guarantee the success of the plan, they even murdered (I allege) Rehnquist and send a man of their own to be the Chief Justice.
When I wrote that the recent tactic Feds using is to arrest in the name of drug charge by unreasonable search, there was a swift re-action.
"Boy George held on drug charges" (Mercury News, 10/9/05)
Police said Boy George called 911 to report a burglary on Friday(10/8) in New York."When police showed up, they found no evidence of a burglary but did find a small amount of cocaine near a computer in his apartment." Boy George was arrested on drug charge.
The case was a framed one, I think. It was a model demonstration to instruct how Feds to act on my case aggressively. In local TV news that night,(10/9) there were pictures that residents of San Jose complained how their houses were intruded by strangers. Next day on 10/10 in the evening, there was a knock at the door. It was a young man. I didn't answer it. He took a walk in my front yard then left.
In previous two attempted frame cases, Feds tried to disguise as contractors of roofing or garage door. I had a look at these two places but couldn't find anything suspicious. It's impossible to search the garage because too much stuff was piled up there. I once puzzled that how the disguised contractor could declare they finding the drug in concealed place where no others could see. Boy George's case solved my problem. George had no motive to tell a lie to call police to his home that led to his arrest. Once police were at his home, the rest words were all theirs. It's too convenient to say there was no evidence of burglary and they found drugs near George's computer.
What they need is to find an excuse that they are legally there. So the search and arrest would be reasonable. Roofing, garage door repair and burglary were all tactics to create an invitation. To make unreasonable search and arrest legal. Once they were there, the rest story was written by themselves.
To make sure they can finish the case as fast as they can, Feds also planned individual search and arrest. For which they prepared many potential "reliable witnesses". To guarantee the success of the plan, they even murdered (I allege) Rehnquist and send a man of their own to be the Chief Justice.
Similar threads
