Saturday, June 28, 2014

SCOTUS PROTECTS THE 1ST and 4TH AMENDMENTS


This has been an epic week.  As I sit here quietly and reflect on the events of the past week, I actually had to stifle a giggle.  The United State Soccer Team lost the game but won the advancement to the Round of 16.  Chalk one up for the U.S.

That is however miniscule in comparison to the major shift in the Supreme Court of The United States as evidenced in the rulings of the week.  This week saw the Supreme Court Justices unite against the Oval Office and in favor of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.  The instant matters revolved around two cases in which Law Enforcement conducted what they alleged were “searches commensurate to arrest” which included the contents of the arrestee’s cell phones. 

The Justices were exceptionally clear on Page 19 and 20 of their decision when they address the difference between the data and metadata contained on cell and smart phones.  The entire decision can be read here:  This is a direct quote from the text:

“Although the data stored on a cell phone is distin­guished from physical records by quantity alone, certain types of data are also qualitatively different. An Internet search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individu­al’s private interests or concerns—perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease, coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been. Historic location information is a stand­ard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building."

Why bother putting this out here to the World?  Well, that is less complicated than the ruling.  For several years now, I have quietly been one of the core Plaintiff’s in KLAYMAN et al  v. OBAMA et al.  The cases hinge upon the NSA’s intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by their collection of the Metadata and all of the other violations of the 4th Amendment. 

According to the ruling this week by the Justice’s which was 9 to 0:

­Our cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment was the founding generation’s response to the reviled “general warrants” and “writs of assistance” of the colonial era, which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity. Opposition to such searches was in fact one of the driving forces behind the Revolution itself. In 1761, the patriot James Otis delivered a speech in Boston denounc­ing the use of writs of assistance. A young John Adams was there, and he would later write that “[e]very man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.” 10 Works of John Adams 247–248 (C. Adams ed. 1856). According to Adams, Otis’s speech was “the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.” Id., at 248 (quoted in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 625 (1886)).

Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.

We reverse the judgment of the California Court of Appeal in No. 13–132 and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. We affirm the judgment of the First Circuit in No. 13–212.”

Chalk up another one for We The People.

Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the State of Massachusetts had impinged upon the Citizens’ 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. 

As time and tide progress, so will the cases in which I am involved with Larry Klayman;  against the Government’s blatant disregard for the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution of These United States. 

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

BERGAHL"S DISAPPEARANCE AND THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW

 
Dear Commander in Chief,
 
There are a great many of us who have questions regarding the disappearance of now SGT BERGDAHL from his unit while deployed in Afghanistan.  I trust that as the Commander in Chief, you will be able to clear these issues up for We The People.
 
1)  Is it true that SGT. BERGDAHL shipped all or most of his personal possessions back home to his family three days before going missing?
 
2)  Is it true that SGT BERGDAHL sent e-mails to his family disavowing the actions of the United States and it's military forces in Afghanistan?
 
3)  Did SGT BERGDAHL desert from the United States Army?
 
4)  Did SGT BERGDAHL aide, abet or assist the enemy in any way before, during or after his alleged capture?
 
5)  Why did Susan Rice state that this exchange was so critical at the time it took place that Congress could not have been afforded the proper notice as required by law when the video's of BERGDAHL in captivity show him eating a well balanced meal and in seeming good health?
 
6)  Is it true that SGT BERGDAHL'S father is Muslim?
 
7)  If SGT BERGDAHL had not deserted, would the six service men who were attempting to locate and rescue him have been killed or wounded?
 
8)  Is it true that you, the Commander in Chief were aware of and pressing for the release of these five high level Taliban detainees for more than two years? (That is a YES or NO question)
 
9)  This is the most important question, Why were the members of SGT BERGDAHL'S platoon ALL required to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding the circumstances of his capture?
 
These are fairly straight forward questions that as the Commander in Chief you should absolutely be able and willing to answer in an equally straight forward fashion.
 
Oh one more things before I forget Sir, have you upheld your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
 
Thank you in advance for your anticipated response,
 
Signed,
We The People

Sunday, June 1, 2014

DEAL WITH THE DEVIL

WHAT DOES BOWE KNOW?

 
First let me start off by saying congratulations to the family of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on the occasion of his release from the Taliban.  If it had been my son, I would have gone to nearly any extreme to secure his release from captivity and generally this would be about the second happiest day of my life.
 
This morning, I watched the news on ABC, please note that this was not FOX News but rather ABC and then the interview of National Security Advisor Susan Rice on the George Stephanopoulos Program,   The following is a direct quote from the dialog that ensued as taken from the above transcript published by ABC.
 
STEPHANOPOULOS:
 
Let's bring those questions to the president's national security adviser Susan Rice. Thank you for joining us this morning.
 
Let's begin with how Bowe Bergdahl is doing right now. We know he's landed in Germany. What more can you tell us about how he's doing, his health?
 
SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, George, first of all, this is a joyous day. The fact that he is now safely in American hands and will be reunited with his family and his community is incredible.
 
He's now in Landstuhl hospital in Germany. He's going through all of the requisite evaluations and care. And he is said to be walking and in good physical condition. And we look forward to the days to come in which we'll have an even better sense of how he's doing and we look forward to when he can return to the United States, continue his rehabilitation and be reunited with his family.
 
 
 
STEPHANOPOULOS: Also questions about whether the president violated the law, that charge has come from congress as well, that he was supposed to notify members of congress before the transfer of any GITMO detainees.
 
RICE: Well, George, in fact what we had to do and what did do, consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, is prioritize the health of Sergeant Bergdahl. We had reason to be concerned that this was an urgent and an acute situation, that his life could have been at risk. We did not have 30 days to wait. And had we waited and lost him, I don't think anybody would have forgiven the United States government.
 
I am a chess player and retired from the United States Army. I fully understand making trades of a strategic nature to win the war.  What The President did in this instance was to trade five Taliban Detainees four of which were extremely high ranking and had previously been tagged as "High Risk" for one Private First Class who by nature of his continued time in service on the rolls of the Department of Defense was promoted two pay grades while being held captive. 
 
So I am forced to ask myself, "What did Bowe know?"  What information did now Sergeant Bergdahl possess that caused The President of The United States to circumvent the Law of the Land and make a Deal With The Devil without the required notice to Congress?
 
RICE:  "We did not have 30 days to wait. And had we waited and lost him, I don't think anybody would have forgiven the United States government."
 
As a young man growing up in the Mid-West, I watched Smokey and The Bandit.  There is an appropriate line in the move where Burt Reynolds says words to the effect of:  "I have an excellent Bull Shit Detector.  I can tell when someone is pissing on my boots and telling me it's raining."
 
Folks this is not rain!!!!
 
We have a young man who may have deserted his post in time of war and either voluntarily broken his "TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGENCE" to the United States by surrendering OR may have left his post by being Derelict In The Performance of His Duties and allowed himself to be captured and now, we have a President who simply feels himself ABOVE THE LAW making a deal that may potentially costs thousands of American lives by releasing five high ranking terrorists back onto the field of battle to plot, plan and execute whatever heinous acts they have been dreaming of as revenge during their detention.
 
We all witnessed the complete embarrassment of Former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as he fumbled to defend the last round of pointed questions put to him by the White House Press Pool.  Since Rice says that the President spoke with the Leader of QATAR on Tuesday, it seems obviously clear why CARNEY chose to resign so suddenly.  THIS IS NOT RAIN and he knows there is no way this is going to bode well.
 
Semper Vigilantes