tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68790748492344272272024-03-12T18:19:54.418-07:00Southern California Private InvestigatorM. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-10420225747638554832014-09-11T10:26:00.001-07:002014-09-11T10:26:37.283-07:00I WAS ROBBED<span style="color: blue;"><strong>No, no-one came up behind me with a knife or gun and demanded my money. It was far more traumatic than that because frankly, I have a unique and specific set of skills that your tax dollars paid for. I didn't go to the bank and find that my account had been emptied by someone who had stolen my identity. I know how to track those people down and recoup my losses.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I went to bed thirteen years ago to wake up to a totally changed world. The American Government and it's people had become complacent believing that the distance and waters separating us from our enemies would keep us secure within our borders and that for some unknown reason, The United States were immune from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I had spent what I considered to be my entire life in service to this Great Nation defending Her against t all enemies foreign and domestic. Ironically, I served almost all of my military career overseas actually aiding other countries in the defense of their borders and freedoms. I stood in West Berlin Germany 110 kilometers inside Communist East Germany at the height of the Cold War. While there, we believed that each and every time we were placed on "alert" status, that the Russian Hoard was coming over The Wall and that we were the last hope for the citizens of West Berlin and all that the "Last Bastian of Freedom" stood for.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I was back in Berlin during "The Fall of The Berlin Wall". I was blessed to witness the end of Soviet oppression over East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the likes. We, THE ALLIES went into to a fight with the resolve to ensure that we saw it through to the end. Collectively, we kicked Hitler's proverbial butt and then dedicated the next 44 years to the principle that Democracy was a right of ALL people not just American people. In 1961, the Soviets erected the Wall and for 28 years, The Americans led the way in the Occupation of Berlin along with our British and French counterparts with a resolve that neither time nor cost would erode our commitment to seeing the Russian Hoard leave and to have Mr. Gorbachev "Tear down this wall". </strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>We succeeded and I witnessed first hand families who had been separated by an arbitrary line in the dirt reunite for the first time in 28 years. I saw the Champaign flow and the reunification of Germany. I was part of something bigger than myself. I helped make history happen.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I continued my military service with pride and honor. I had married, had four children, one of which was tragically taken from us at birth and I watched with pride each and every time my children stood up when The National Anthem was played or when they stopped playing while on base when Retreat sounded and the Flag was lowered for the day. At night, they were tucked snuggly into their modest but safe beds and they rested there worry free of any evil visiting them during the night. After all, Dad was on watch. If I could help secure the borders of foreign lands surely, I need not worry about someone being stupid enough to try to visit harm against Americans on American soil.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Not so, it seemed. On September 11th, 2001, the unthinkable happened. We went to sleep and our enemies were awake and not only did they visit horrible evils upon us, we showed time and time after relentless time on the news for days. There was no safe haven. We were rapt in the horror that someone, anyone could have so much hatred for the Land We Love that they would die to inflict evil upon us. Terror had hit home and I and others were left to try to explain to our children why they were no longer safe at night. </strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>"Dad, why are you crying?" "Dad, why are you sitting up by my bed?" "Dad, why would anyone do such a thing." It was done because evil dwells in the hearts of men. What I and generations of honorable men and women who dedicated their lives to protect "From Sea to Shining Sea" was gone in an instant. For the first time since Pearl Harbor, Americans were attacked ruthless on our own soil. This somehow seemed more tragic to me because in my opinion, at least Pearl Harbor was not on the Continental United States and I could justify that our physical borders were still secure. </strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I like everyone else, had fallen victim to the belief that we were untouchable on our own soil.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I still apologize to my children. I am still haunted by the thought that "WE" should have seen this coming and that The Most Powerful Nation in the World could have prevented these attacks from happening. I was robbed of the ideals and principles I and others like me truly believed in; "NOT ON MY WATCH". Well, it was my watch. It did happen and no, time doesn't heal that wound.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>We The People need to learn from our past that if we do not intend to complete the task, we should not take up the sword. I want my children's children to know the serenity that I slept with as a child. I was robbed of that. They were robbed of that and they don't even know how to begin to understand what it is they were robbed of.</strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I was robbed and it was so much worse than at gun or knife point.</strong></span><br />
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-71731520088212693842014-07-16T10:52:00.003-07:002014-07-16T10:54:47.064-07:00NOT SO QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT<br />
<strong>Today I was watching the morning news and there were two segments back to back that astounded me. The first was about the First Lady being in Los Angeles for a visit with her daughter, to raise funds for the DNC and to be the Key Note Speaker at a luncheon at the Century Plaza Hotel bringing light to the veterans who are unemployed, under employed and homeless in the area. <u>According to this story, there are between 36,000 and 56,000 homeless men, women and children in the Greater Los Angeles Area of which some estimated 6,000 are veterans.</u> <span style="color: red;"><u>Wow - we don't even have close to an accurate count.</u></span></strong><span style="color: red;"><u> </u></span><br />
<br />
<strong>The second story, as brief as it was, told how our new Mayor, Gil Garciette just announced that he is eager to help house the "migrant" children in the area. I took that to mean the illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants depending on your particular preference. I would love to help each and every man, woman and child in need but as has been said, "Charity begins at home." How can the Mayor justify spending any funds on the undocumented before attempting to care for our own in need?</strong> <br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Before you jump to any false conclusions, I 100% support the immortally poetic words at the Statue of Liberty National Park:</span></strong> <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> With conquering limbs astride from land to land;</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" </strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>My thought is simple - <u><em>force our Government to fix the systemic problems within the greed driven politico's who wide in the fortress that is Congress, the Senate and yes even The White House so that those who would come here seeking a better life truly stand a chance.</em></u> At this moment, We The People and our elected officials are ensuring that the quality of life of those tire, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free remains diminished. They live in constant fear of deportation. They work in below minimum wage jobs to live in flea, rate and roach infested slums with no hot water because they are threatened with La Migra should they attempt to file a complaint. </strong></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong> Let We The People sound off and demand that our elected officials find a way to fix the broken system that is INS. Let US stand and demand that the political hot potato of illegal vs undocumented aliens be staffed with public servants who are trained and equipped to review the applications in a timely fashion thereby alleviating the need for those who seek freedom to enter our borders in dangerous conditions and under dubious care of Coyote's. </strong></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong>ONLY by FIXING the system at the root of the problem can we actually disempower the rest of the hot bed political issues and begin to show true compassion for those in search of a better life.</strong></div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-12119129674999061862014-06-28T12:22:00.000-07:002014-06-28T12:22:59.417-07:00SCOTUS PROTECTS THE 1ST and 4TH AMENDMENTS<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">This has been an epic week.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I sit here quietly and reflect on the
events of the past week, I actually had to stifle a giggle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The United State Soccer Team lost the game
but won the advancement to the Round of 16.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Chalk one up for the U.S.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This week saw the Supreme
Court Justices unite against the Oval Office and in favor of the 4<sup>th</sup>
Amendment of the Constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf" target="_blank">The entire decision can be read here:</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a direct quote from the text:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="CM22" style="line-height: 13.3pt; margin: 0in 0in 6.75pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Century Schoolbook;"><strong><span style="color: blue; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Century Schoolbook";"><u>“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."</u></span></strong></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Why
bother putting this out here to the World?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Well, that is less complicated than the ruling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For several years now, I have quietly been
one of the core Plaintiff’s in KLAYMAN et al <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>v. OBAMA et al.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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 4<sup>th</sup> Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">According
to the ruling this week by the Justice’s which was 9 to 0:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="CM13" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue;"></span><u><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;">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.” <i>Id., </i>at 248 (quoted in <i>Boyd </i>v.
<i>United States</i>, 116 U. S. 616, 625 (1886)).<o:p></o:p></span></span></u></span></b></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span></u></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style="color: blue;">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,” <i>Boyd</i>, <i>supra</i>, 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— <span style="color: red;">get
a warrant</span>. <o:p></o:p></span></span></u></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="color: blue;">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.”</span></span></u></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Chalk up another one for We The People.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the State of Massachusetts had
impinged upon the Citizens’ 1<sup>st</sup> Amendment Right to Freedom of
Speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">As time and tide progress, so will the cases in which I am
involved with <a href="http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/" target="_blank">Larry Klayman;</a> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>against the Government’s blatant disregard
for the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution of These United
States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-81806537286153013562014-06-03T08:46:00.003-07:002014-06-03T14:38:23.038-07:00BERGAHL"S DISAPPEARANCE AND THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT<h2 align="center">
<u><span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW</span></u></h2>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Dear Commander in Chief,</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">3) Did SGT BERGDAHL desert from the United States Army?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">4) Did SGT BERGDAHL aide, abet or assist the enemy in any way before, during or after his alleged capture?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">6) Is it true that SGT BERGDAHL'S father is Muslim?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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)</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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?</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Thank you in advance for your anticipated response,</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Signed,</span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">We The People</span></strong></div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-43787560185166197482014-06-01T09:37:00.000-07:002014-06-01T09:37:21.830-07:00DEAL WITH THE DEVIL<h2 align="center">
<u><span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">WHAT DOES BOWE KNOW?</span></u></h2>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.</span></span></div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
This morning, I watched the news on ABC, please note that this was not FOX News but rather ABC and then the<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-ambassador-susan-rice-sen-ted-cruz/story?id=23942676&page=2" target="_blank"> interview of National Security Advisor Susan Rice on the George Stephanopoulos Program,</a> <span style="color: black;">The following is a direct quote from the dialog that ensued as taken from the above transcript published by ABC.</span></div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">STEPHANOPOULOS: </span></strong></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Let's bring those questions to the president's national security adviser Susan Rice. Thank you for joining us this morning. </strong></span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong></strong></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>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?</strong> </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: red;"><strong><u>SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER:</u></strong> 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. </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: red;"></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: red;">He's now in Landstuhl hospital in Germany. <u><strong>He's going through all of the requisite evaluations and care. And he is said to be walking and in good physical condition</strong></u>. 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.</span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong>Wait! Stop the Presses!!! </strong><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-ambassador-susan-rice-sen-ted-cruz/story?id=23942676&page=3" target="_blank">Lets exam this statement with what she says next about why The President did not inform Congress of this deal as required by law:</a></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
</div>
<span style="color: red;"><div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>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.</strong></span> </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: black;"></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
RICE: <strong><u>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.</u></strong> <strong><u>We had reason to be concerned that this was an urgent and an acute situation, that his life could have been at risk.</u></strong> 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. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: black;">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 "<strong>High Risk"</strong> 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. </span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: black;"></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>So I am forced to ask myself, "What did Bowe know?" </strong>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?</span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><u>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."</u></strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: blue;"></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="color: black;">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: </span><span style="color: blue;"><strong>"I have an excellent Bull Shit Detector. I can tell when someone is pissing on my boots and telling me it's raining."</strong></span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><u>Folks this is not rain!!!!</u></span></strong></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">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.</span></strong></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: black;">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.</span></strong></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: black;"></span></strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: black;">Semper Vigilantes</span></strong></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<span style="background-color: black;"></span> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<strong><span style="color: blue;"></span></strong> </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
</div>
</span>M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-11957141383359651152014-05-02T11:21:00.001-07:002014-05-02T11:22:29.136-07:00SCA WARRANTS NOW REACH OUTSIDE THE U.S.<h2 align="center">
<u>What is an SCA Warrant?</u></h2>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
In short, an SCA (Stored Communications Act) Warrant is a device used by the Federal Government to obtain information from Microsoft and others regarding individual users actual information stored on the companies computers. This goes beyond the normal information that the Government admits that it is already gathering regarding an account holder's usage activity and gets to the meat and potatoes of what that user searches for, message content etc.... <span style="color: blue;">The<strong> Stored Communications Act (SCA) </strong>was enacted in 1986 as part of the larger Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and sought to provide 4th Amendment-like protections to the contents of electronic communications in the hands of service providers like Microsoft.</span> </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
Here is the scary part, U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, ruled last Friday that Microsoft must turn over the records sought by the U.S. Government even though the records they were seeking lay outside the United States in Ireland. </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-121" target="_blank">18 U.S. Code § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records</a></h1>
<!-- uscode page callback --><br />
<div class="block block-uscode even" id="block-uscode-prelim">
<div id="uscode_prelim_note">
</div>
</div>
<div class="block block-quicktabs odd" id="block-quicktabs-us-code-tabs">
<div class="quicktabs-wrapper quicktabs-style-zen jquery-once-1-processed" id="quicktabs-us_code_tabs">
<div class="quicktabs_main quicktabs-style-zen" id="quicktabs-container-us_code_tabs">
<div class="quicktabs-tabpage " id="quicktabs-tabpage-us_code_tabs-0">
<div class="block block-uscode first odd" id="block-uscode-text">
<sectioncontent></sectioncontent><br />
<div class="psection-1">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="a"></a> <span style="color: blue;"><span class="enumbell">(a)</span> <b class="labelleader"> Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.— </b> </span><span class="ptext-"><span style="color: blue;"><strong><u>A governmental entity</u></strong> may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, <u><strong>only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction</strong></u>. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.</span> </span></div>
<div class="psection-1">
<span class="ptext-"></span> </div>
<div class="psection-1">
<span class="ptext-"><a href="http://www.natlawreview.com/article/southern-district-new-york-significantly-broadens-reach-warrants-under-stored-commun" target="_blank">According to the article publish in the National Review</a></span></div>
<div class="psection-1">
<span class="ptext-"></span> </div>
<div class="psection-1">
<span class="ptext-" style="color: blue;">Under the SCA, the government can obtain certain kinds of electronic information held by a service provider only upon a showing of probable cause of wrongdoing. <strong><u>Obtaining the actual content of an electronic communication requires a higher showing than for, say, account information. If the showing requirement is met, a court can issue an SCA Warrant.</u></strong><sup><strong><u>[2</u></strong>]</sup> The SCA Warrant is served on a service provider, who then conducts a search and produces relevant communications.</span></div>
<br />
The article continues and states:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">In its motion to quash the SCA Warrant in this case, Microsoft’s argument was simple: warrants are not subpoenas. If the government served a subpoena on Microsoft, then Microsoft would be required to produce relevant information within its possession, custody or control regardless of where it physically resided. <strong><u><span style="color: red;">But, by attempting to obtain information located on servers in Ireland via a warrant, the U.S. government sought information outside of the territorial limits of the United States. Because Federal courts have no authority to issue warrants for the search and seizure of property outside the territorial limits of the United States</span></u></strong>, Microsoft argued it should not be required to produce the information. In support of its argument, Microsoft noted the SCA Warrant is referred to as just that, a “warrant,” and also requires to the use of warrant procedures in obtaining it.</span><br />
<br />
Here is the unbelievable part:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><strong><u>This argument, however, failed to convince Judge Francis. After conceding Microsoft’s analysis was “not inconsistent with the statutory language” of the SCA, Judge Francis held that the SCA Warrant was not a typical warrant, but was a “hybrid: part search warrant and part subpoena.” It is a like a search warrant in that an application is made to a magistrate upon a showing of probable cause.</u></strong></span><br />
<br />
This so-called Magistrate Judge has single-handedly changed the intent of the 4th Amendment single without any concern for citizen's rights, case law or waiting for the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the wide spread implications of granting the government even more power and authority to invade the reasonable expectations of "We The People".<br />
<br />
Semper Vigilantes</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-9064085552721356762014-05-01T14:01:00.002-07:002014-05-01T14:01:40.807-07:00ABOUT BENGHAZI<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: blue;">WHY LIE?</span></u></h2>
<br />
Today I watched the entire heated exchange between Press Secretary Carney and the reporter attempting to gain clarity regarding the Administrations prior statements about what they knew regarding the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. <strong><a href="http://video.lauraingraham.com/White-House-Briefing-Turns-Contentious-Over-Benghazi-Lies-25886359?playlistId=993#.U2Ktw3Ln-Ul" target="_blank">That entire exchange is available for your own review here</a></strong> for your own review and consideration. In this exchange, Carney attempts to deflect and redirect the journalist with regards to the contradictions in statements made by the Administration and what was found in the e-mail released to <span style="color: blue;"><strong><u><a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14" target="_blank">Justice Watch</a></u></strong></span> through their recent Freedom of Information Act Request. <br />
<br />
I found that contrary to Carney's assertions in the exchange that according to U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-38774 Doc No C054152280 Dated 04/17/2014, that on page two of the heavily redacted document production the exact following:<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">"Q) What's your response to the Independent story that says we have intelligence 48 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack that was ignored?</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="color: red;">This story is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. We also see indications that this action was related to the video that has sparked protests in other countries."</span><br />
<br />
It is important to remember that these were admittedly the <span style="color: red;"><u><strong>"TOPLINE POINTS"</strong> </u></span><span style="color: black;">that were given to Secretary Rice to help her prepare for her Sunday Morning T.V. appearance. The administration knew that the questions were coming and this was the response that they came up with for her to tell the entire world on Sunday morning.</span><br />
<br />
The Administration has attempted to duck and dodge this issue for far too long. They have attempted to have the public believe that this was not a preplanned attack which we now know is completely lacking in credibility. Our former military leaders previously assigned to Germany state that the military should have been sent in. We have former Government officials stating that they knew of the possibility of this having been a pre-planned terrorist attack and still the White House attempts to have us believe otherwise. In the story published by <strong><u><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/01/benghazi-testimony-africom-general/8554559/" target="_blank">USA Today, today</a></u></strong> it is clear that Air Force Brigadier General Lovell, Retired who served on the Africa Command stated: <strong><u><span style="color: blue;">"This was no demonstration gone terribly awry."</span></u></strong><br />
<br />
The good General was testifying before the House Subcommittee on Government Oversight and Reform when Lovell stated: <br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">"Lovell's testimony contradicts the story that the Obama administration gave in the early days following the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Back then the administration insisted that the best intelligence it had from CIA and other officials indicated that the attack was a protest against an anti-Islam video that turned violent."</span><br />
<br />
More disturbingly was Lovell's statement:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">"As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above," Lovell said.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span><br />
<span style="color: red;">While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya "churned on about what we should do,"<u><strong> but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department</strong></u>, Lovell said.</span><br />
<br />
So while the White House and the Administration would have us believe that there was no real or actionable intelligence to indicate that the boots on the ground in Benghazi were at risk, the Leading Democrat on the Committee asks:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><u><strong>Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited the testimony of then-commander of AFRICOM Gen. Carter Ham and others who testified that the military moved a special forces unit from Europe to Sicily while the attack was ongoing, and sent a special anti-terrorism team of Marines to Tripoli within a day of the attack.</strong></u></span><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span><br />
<span style="color: red;">"Why are you testifying that the U.S. military did not try to save lives," Cummings asked.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Lovell said he was not disputing that information.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"></span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><strong>"I did not say we did not try," Lovell said. "What I'm speaking to is that we as a nation need to try to do more, in preparations, so that in the future ... we can support the people and have their backs."</strong></span><br />
<br />
Why then is it so important that "We The People" fall for this cover story or allow the facts to be swept away in some tide of time? Perhaps the answer lies in the 2016 Presidential elections. If Benghazi goes away and the entire nation suddenly gets a case of CRS (Can't Remember Squat), the this would not tarnish Hilary's chances at a run for the oval office. This is a woman who reportedly knew of the impending attack, allegedly knew that the boots on the ground were asking for help to defend against a potential threat which we now know was not only credible but resulted in the senseless and unnecessary loss of American lives and most importantly, she is the woman who absolutely decided to ignore all of the evidence, warnings and requests for assistance thereby signing the death warrant of our Fellow Americans.<br />
<br />
Semper Vigilantes<br />
<br />
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-45023398233688496322014-04-28T10:40:00.002-07:002014-04-28T10:40:42.409-07:004th Amendment Challenged at SCOTUS<h2 align="center">
<u><span style="color: blue;">SCOTUS TO TAKE UP 4TH AMENDMENT ISSUES</span></u></h2>
<h2 align="center">
<u><span style="color: blue;">THIS TUESDAY</span></u> </h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
While "We The People" have been quietly kept unaware by media on both sides of the isle, two very important issues have been slowly making their way through the American Judicial System. Both hinge on the 4th Amendment and specifically, the people's rights to feel safe from the Government in their possessions against unwarranted searches and seizures and to maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
According to the article <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/supreme-court-to-rule-on-warrantless-searches-of-electronic-devices/" target="_blank">published over the weekend</a>, <span style="color: red;"><u>"President Barack Obama's administration and prosecutors from states across the country have lobbied for police officers to be able to search arrestees' gadgets—at or about the time of arrest—without a warrant."</u></span><span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black;"></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black;">As stated in the article, in both cases, the individuals had been lawfully detained. Both suspects were then arrested. In both cases, the government (police) searched the contents of the suspects electronic devices without warrants or any obvious probable cause. Lower courts in both cases have held that the searches were violations of the suspects rights and classified them as unlawful searches and seizures. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If the government had reason to believe that evidence of the crimes for which either party had been detained was present on either of the devices in question, the law is clear that they should have moved for a warrant to search those devices for additional evidence. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In one case, the evidence located in the search subject to arrest had nothing to do with the original crime and it seems that a reasonably prudent individual could not have assumed that evidence of the crimes in question could be secreted on the devices. In the second case, the suspect was arrested for selling drugs from his car. One could make an obvious argument that drug dealers routinely use their cell phones to set up both sales and purchases of illegal substances however, the "Plain View Doctrine" should not apply to the contents of the phone and certainly nothing on the phone's surface could be directly connected to the sale or distribution of control dangerous substances. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
More importantly in the case of the drug dealer, there were no exigent circumstances which would tend to show that if the arresting officers did not immediately search the suspect's phone, would have led to the loss or destruction of evidence in the matter. Quite the opposite is true, the phone was safely taken into police custody as was the suspect. It could have been properly safeguarded until a warrant based upon probable cause was presented to a Judge who might have issued a legitimate search warrant for the contents of the phone and the officers would have found the suspect's home and thus the additional drugs.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In that case, it is important to note that "Fruit of the Poison Tree" doctrine should be applied and any and all evidence obtained following the unwarranted search of the suspect's chattels should have been excluded from the trial. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The other case is a bit more complex as to the issue of the suspects vehicle being searched and the police then locating illegal firearms inside the engine compartment. The suspect was lawfully stopped and found to be driving a vehicle with expired tags and with an expired license. In California, there is a great deal of history of the Police impounding vehicles under these exact circumstances. It is routine to inventory a vehicle prior to impounding it so there is a strong possibility that the firearms would have been located whoever, there is a strong argument that under normal inventory procedures, the engine compartment may not have been gone through as this was an inventory not a search. The discussion about the officers going through the electronic device of the suspect holds the same arguments as previously stated with the exception that the suspect may have been cited and released and therefore his property would have been released as well. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The issue remains that these both appear to be unlawful searches and invasions of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. Remember that neither suspect had been tried in a Court of Law and should therefore have been presumed innocent until proven guilty. They still maintain their Constitutional Rights and those rights appear to have been impinged by the Government.</div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-23030692275394352882014-04-24T14:18:00.000-07:002014-04-24T14:30:46.630-07:00I AM MY BROTHERS KEEPER<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue;"><u>I AM MY BROTHER'S KEEPER</u></span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I am one of the plaintiff's in the case regarding the government's blatant violations of the 4th Amendment Rights to Reasonable Expectation of Privacy within homes and possessions. That case, Civil Action No. 1: 13-cv-00851 being heard in The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has been quietly progressing with little to no media attention because in part the press either does not wish to bring this matter to the forefront or they have been intimidated by the White House to remain as close to mute on the matter as is possible.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As I have noted in previous entries here, the Government's complete disregard for the 4th Amendment in it's data collection efforts is not only unprecedented by completely unconscionable. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank">According to Wikipedia:</a> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
"The <b>Fourth Amendment</b> (<b>Amendment IV</b>) to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" title="United States Constitution">United States Constitution</a> is the part of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" title="United States Bill of Rights">Bill of Rights</a> that prohibits unreasonable <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure" title="Search and seizure">searches and seizures</a> and requires any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)" title="Warrant (law)">warrant</a> to be judicially sanctioned and supported by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause" title="Probable cause">probable cause</a>. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance" title="Writ of assistance">writ of assistance</a>, a type of general <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant" title="Search warrant">search warrant</a> issued by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire" title="British Empire">British government</a> and a major source of tension in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution" title="American Revolution">pre-Revolutionary America</a>."</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-speech-obama-to-call-for-restructuring-of-nsas-surveillance-program/2014/01/17/e9d5a8ba-7f6e-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html" target="_blank">In his recent disclosure of how the President was going to fix the current NSA debacle, President Obama stated in a Speech at the Justice Department;</a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: red;"><strong><u>"Obama directed that from now on, the government must obtain a court order for each phone number it wants to query in its database of records"</u></strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Perhaps I am still just a dumb ol' country boy from small town USA, but it seems to me that the 4th Amendment was exceptionally clear in requiring the Government to obtain a Search Warrant issued by a Judge based upon Probable Cause before violating a citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I am not a Constitutional Lawyer. I do not profess to know all of the case law that has transpired over all the years with regards to the 4th or any other Amendment to the Bill of Rights, but I am positive that I have a clear understanding of the fears of our Founding Fathers when they determined that it was necessary to draft and ratify the 4th Amendment. The entire purpose of the 4th Amendment was to limit the Government's ability to conduct unwarranted searches and seizures and to guarantee the citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy in their persons and possessions. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
For the Administration to so flagrantly disregard the intent of the 4th Amendment on such a broad scope as is being conducted under the veil of secrecy and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without shining the light of day on their complete lack of probable cause to secretly gather, store, manipulate and farm your records and mine is the epitome of the violations our Founding Fathers set out to protect us from. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Perhaps this all becomes a bit more clear when we evaluate the President's position of being "my brother's keeper". </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #cc0000;"><strong></strong></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/19/weekly-address-president-obama-offers-easter-and-passover-greetings" target="_blank">In his Easter address, President Obama stated:</a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: red;"><strong>"The common thread of humanity that connects us all – not just Christians and
Jews, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs – is our shared commitment to love our
neighbors as we love ourselves. <u>To remember, I am my brother’s keeper. I am my
sister’s keeper.</u> Whatever your faith, believer or nonbeliever, there’s no
better time to rededicate ourselves to that universal mission."</strong></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Most good God fearing folk were raised to know the story of Cain and Able as it is told in the Bible. The Bible reports in Genesis 4:9 <span style="color: #cc0000;"><strong> <span style="color: blue;">"<span class="highl">Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?"</span></span> </strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-54449615207525958712014-04-10T16:38:00.000-07:002014-04-10T16:38:03.100-07:00A PERFECT DAYI think that it is important to report the good as well as the bad. Many have no idea that besides being a Retired Military Police SSG, a licensed California Private Investigator, a registered Process Server and yes, even a licensed Lock Smith that a little more than five years ago, I formed a small but effective private foundation that gives back just a bit to the families of the men and women who so bravely serve our country. Over the past five years, the North Pole Foundation has gathered literal truck loads of toys which are delivered to the Family Readiness Officers on Camp Pendleton to be given to the children of those who were deployed in harms way or were otherwise in need to "keep the dream alive".<br />
<br />
So yes Virginia and all those other boys and girls, there is a Santa Claus and he never sees you and never watches you open the gifts that you receive for the holidays, but it would pain him and everyone that supports his cause if you did not get those small tokens of appreciation from your unnamed benefactors. The North Pole Foundation has also sent thousands of DVD's to the men and women serving in Afghanistan and other parts unknown because attempting to use their laptops on the Internet to pass time could result in the enemy reverse engineering their locations through the satellites and thus targeting them and their brothers and sisters in arms. <br />
<br />
We are doing wonderful things for the children in shelters in Orange and Los Angeles Counties and our friends are making differences to those in need in Arizona as well. <br />
<br />
There is more, much more but that isn't the point today. Today was a perfect day. Several days ago I received a phone call from the 1st Marine Logistics Group Family Readiness Officer. He asked if I would be able to meet him on Camp Pendleton this morning because the base was honoring those who volunteered over the past year. As always, without a moment's hesitation, I informed Gloria that we had plans and needed to be out the door by 07:30 this morning to meet Mr. Bradford. We arrived a bit early but in my defense, I was taught that five minutes early was ten minutes late and judging traffic in southern California is never exactly easy. <br />
<br />
Upon our arrival at the Pacific Views Event Center, I donned my coat and tie and waited patiently with Gloria until Mr. Bradford arrived. He greeted us with a smile and a genuine embrace and then escorted us to our table, stage center and politely informed us that <strong>1st MLG, Brigadier General</strong> <strong>Vincent A. Coglianese </strong>and his wife <strong>Mary </strong>would be seated with us as well as the <strong>1st MLG Sergeant Major Thrasher</strong> and his wife. There were light refreshments and when Eric returned with a beverage, I observed that he had a program which I had not seen. I quickly went and found the young Family Readiness Officer who was passing them out and ask for one for myself and one for Gloria. As I returned to my seat, I opened the program and realized that I was listed as a nominee for the Civilian Volunteer of the Year Award. <br />
<br />
No, I was not the selected recipient of the award and honestly I think that everyone else who was nominated deserved the award far more than I. In true military fashion, I just herd the cats that make everything happen and although it was a huge honor to be nominated, I am thrilled to have not won the award. It is however infinitely important to recognize the efforts of so many who volunteer with the North Pole Foundation and who donate items to be auctioned off and who give toys to be delivered or spend money at events that allow us to purchase the gifts that we give. <br />
<br />
This was a perfect day. I was able to listen to Mary Coglianese talk with me about her amazing spirit. She has had diabetes for a very long time and her sight is impaired greatly. She shared with me as if she had known me for years not moments. As we were ending our conversation and preparing to sit down for the ceremony, Mary made a comment to me about her outlook on life and simply stated she said "At least it isn't cancer." <br />
<br />
This amazing woman has refined the importance of her challenges to the mantra "At least it isn't cancer." I know that that is her version of "Retreat Hell, we just got here." and I knew instantly that her spirit is unstoppable. <br />
<br />
As the ceremony concluded, the General and the Sergeant Major both addressed me as if they knew me forever. They asked about my son the Marine who was the catalyst for all of this and they were truly concerned. When I told the General that my son had boarded a ship on Sunday, the General said oh yea and named the vessel and then said that he had gone down to see them off yesterday. <br />
<br />
The questions shocked me that they remembered so much about why The North Pole Foundation was started and they impressed upon me the gratitude of so many Marines, Sailor's their wives and children who have been touched by our willingness to give just a bit of ourselves and our time and money. I have spoken hundreds of times about how our gifts impact those we never meet but it was not until today as I was shaking the General's hand and he quietly and unceremoniously slipped me his Challenge Coin, that I realized the real gift of giving.<br />
<br />
We make a difference. Our small tokens of gratitude and appreciation remind those who would walk through the fires of hell for us, people they have never met and probably will never meet, understand that there service and sacrifice is noted. In turn, the small token of a Commander's Challenge Coin slipped into an empty palm during a handshake returned the message that what we do, what we give is noted and matters. What a perfect day.M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-15981605587597775152014-04-03T09:45:00.000-07:002014-04-03T09:45:13.191-07:00AT WHAT PRICE?<h2 align="center">
<u><span style="color: red;">AT WHAT PRICE?</span></u></h2>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
As the Beetles song goes, "I read the news today, Oh Boy". Once again lives are forever destroyed and irrevocably altered on Fort Hood. The facts are vague at best but what seems to be confirmed is that a troubled young soldier, father and husband returned from war and had been assessed with depression and "behavioral and mental" maladies. It is confirmed that he was on anti-depression medicine and the "system" was evaluating him for possible PTSD. The short version is that he snapped. He killed three other patriots, injured 16 more and then when confronted by a Military Police Patrol Woman, took his own life.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
In short, the system had an epic failure once again. This young man arrived on Fort Hood less than three months ago. His prior command, although treating him for his mental issues, allowed him to PCS (Permanent Change of Station) to Ft. Hood and somewhere, somehow in all of the budget cuts and bull, this kid became so messed up that he found no other solution than to claim lives, injury others and then end his own existence.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
Even if this soldier who claimed to have suffered TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) while deployed to a combat zone had chosen to end only his own life this would be a tragic event. The fact that the White House, Congress the Senate and yes, even senior military leaders are talking about budget cuts including those that fund veterans benefits which include assessment and treatment at the V.A. Hospitals in the face of the ever increasing post deployment struggles our young patriots are facing is, in my humble opinion, unconscionable if not at least border line criminal.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
We are taking 18 year old kids who think that they have a clue what it is like to witness death because of the graphic nature of their video games and thrusting them in to real world horrors of war. They are seeing sights no one should have to endure. They are engaged by enemies who use hit and run tactics from hardened positions and then they are forced to radio up the Chain of Command and wait for authorization to return fire and defend themselves while their comrades and friends are being decimated right in front of them. By the time the authorization comes back down the Chain of Command, the fight is over and the enemy is gone. </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
They come home and they are mailed packets of questions that are supposed to raise flags if that service man or woman might have lingering issues from their exposure to the spoils and ravages of war. Are you kidding me? No one can go to war and come back the same as when they left home. If you have never had to take a live or faced the reality of your life being taken, you have idea how to assess, treat or even establish common ground with someone who has. In our father's father's days, the old war horses went to the VFW's and AM-VET's where they talked with others who had been there and done that. Today, we ask our young warriors to fill in the blanks of a pre-printed form and give them no real outlet to deal with their very true and raw emotions. </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
Yes, some have returned and feigned PTSD as a way to get out of the armed forces. Yes, the powers that be should be cautious and complete in assessing our military members and ensuring that they get proper treatment for whatever malady they bring back with them from war. </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
But at what price are we cutting the budgets that deal with these issues? We have epic numbers of brave souls returning from deployments who are committing suicides or acting out in manners that most cannot understand and simply chalk up as bad behavior. It is possible that these are their cries for help and because the powers that be are making conscious choices to cut the funding to help these veterans return to as close to a normal way of life as is possible, they are dying. Dying literally and figuratively. </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
So I ask you, at what price are the budget cuts coming? Personally I would rather see a Congressman or Senator's aide be force to drive their own car and pay the same high prices for gas as I do and send that money back into the system to treat the mental wounds of our warriors. I would gladly witness the President taking one or two less fund raising trips a year and having the costs of Air Force One, the pilots, ground crews, security, hotels etc.. conveyed to the V.A. for the proper diagnosis and treatment of even one or two additional returning hero's. Why not stop the White House Press Diner and take those funds to pay for a year's salary for just one true mental health professional to assess whatever additional percentage of returning service members properly without worrying about running out of funds? </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
Lastly, I heard the banter of the news about why not allow service men and women carry concealed weapons on base. As a retired Military Police Officer I can assure you that that would be an even bigger epic failure on the part of the Government and the Military. Set up an additional duty roster to have soldiers actually secure their perimeters domestically as if they were abroad and in harms way, absolutely. If you have ever made a felony traffic stop, pulled someone over who you knew was armed and dangerous, imagine being that poor young MP on patrol knowing that potentially every time you pulled someone over they might be more heavily armed than you and it is easy to see the flaws in that line of thought. The men and women of our armed forces are highly trained in the art of war including marksmanship. Let's protect them with common sense and place additional armed guards on the bases who may have been able to respond in a more timely manner then did the MP;s in this latest incident. Remember that the ratio of on-duty MP's to soldier's on a standard base is minute. The "Good Order and Discipline" of the military ensures that generally we don't need one patrol person to every hundred people on base. Ft. Hood is 300 square miles in size. The MP's are spread thin to say the least so the response time under the conditions was more than reasonable. What was unreasonable was the fact that this young man was failed by the system and one or two less budget cuts within the military may have made a difference and saved lives.</div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-49489327440955653672014-03-27T10:27:00.002-07:002014-03-27T10:27:57.685-07:00<h2 align="center">
<span style="color: blue;"><u>WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT?</u></span></h2>
<h2 align="left">
</h2>
<div align="left">
We The People have lost our minds. We are all aware of the transgressions of the Government and specifically the NSA with regards to our reasonable expectations of privacy and our right to feel secure in our homes against unreasonable searches and seizures. Recently, the Obama administration and the President himself announced sweeping reforms that were being proposed to stop the perceived violations of the peoples rights by the government. </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
In a March 24th New York Times article entitled "<strong><u>Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.’s Bulk Data Collection</u></strong>" the following "changes" were proposed.</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<span style="color: red;">Under the proposal, they said, the N.S.A. would end its systematic collection of data about Americans’ calling habits. The bulk records would stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. <strong><u>And the N.S.A. could obtain specific records only with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.</u></strong></span></div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
Following my long career in Law Enforcement in the Military, I recalled being taught and having had to follow the requires set forth in the 4th Amendment to obtain a Search Warrant. A Search Warrant is what law enforcement are required to have in order to search you, your possessions or chattels, and / or your car and home UNLESS under exigent circumstances waiting for the issuance of a warrant would cause the lass of evidence or life etc..</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div id="siteSub">
<strong><u>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</u></strong> </div>
<div class="mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" id="mw-content-text" lang="en">
<div class="metadata topicon nopopups" id="good-star" style="display: none; right: 10px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles" title="This is a good article. Click here for more information."><img alt="This is a good article. Click here for more information." height="15" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/15px-Symbol_support_vote.svg.png" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/23px-Symbol_support_vote.svg.png 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/30px-Symbol_support_vote.svg.png 2x" width="15" /></a></div>
<div class="thumb tright">
</div>
The <b>Fourth Amendment</b> (<b>Amendment IV</b>) to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" title="United States Constitution">United States Constitution</a> is the part of the<strong><span style="color: red;"> </span></strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" title="United States Bill of Rights"><strong><span style="color: red;">Bill of Rights</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color: red;"> that prohibits unreasonable </span></strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure" title="Search and seizure"><strong><span style="color: red;">searches and seizures</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color: red;"> and requires any </span></strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)" title="Warrant (law)"><strong><span style="color: red;">warrant</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color: red;"> to be judicially sanctioned and supported by </span></strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause" title="Probable cause"><strong><span style="color: red;">probable cause</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color: red;">.</span></strong> It was adopted in response to the abuse of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance" title="Writ of assistance">writ of assistance</a>, a type of general <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant" title="Search warrant">search warrant</a> issued by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire" title="British Empire">British government</a> and a major source of tension in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution" title="American Revolution">pre-Revolutionary America</a>. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison" title="James Madison">James Madison</a>, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist" title="Anti-Federalist">Anti-Federalist</a> objections to the new Constitution. Congress <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal" title="Article Five of the United States Constitution">submitted</a> the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification" title="Article Five of the United States Constitution">ratified</a> it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson" title="Thomas Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a> announced the adoption of the amendment.<br />
<br />
I am not a Rhodes Scholar nor am I the brightest bulb burning on the tree at all times, however, it seems clear to me that the Government's creation of a <strong>new kind of court order</strong> continues to circumvent the already functional and time tested method to obtain information and / or evidence. I am all in favor of thwarting terrorist plots. I am also in favor of stopping criminal plans before they are put fully into motion. That said, I am still a simple country boy from the Midwest and I don't know crap from apple butter, but I do taste the difference when you spread them on bread and try to force feed them to me. <br />
<br />
The FISA Court is a farce. It was created to circumvent the legal methods that were set in motion in 1792 to stop the Government from abusing its powers against "We The People". At present, NSA is not required by the FISA Court or the Government and it's agents to show probable cause as outlined in the Bill of Rights to search your records. They have a standing "LETTER" that orders the phone companies to turn over your calling history and other information simply because they want it. They are doing the same with banking transactions and God only knows what else. Yes, 9-11 was tragic and the loss of American and other lives on our soil was devastating but I had nothing to do with it. I spent a lifetime in the Military supporting and defending the "Constitution of The United States against all enemies, Foreign AND Domestic." I have worked in places that don't exist. I have been entrusted with the security of persons and information that cannot to this day be discussed. I am not a threat to the United States. <br />
<br />
I am a patriot. I believe that those who can, MUST stand against injustices for those who themselves cannot or will not. I believe that a government not kept in check will usurp all of the rights and freedoms its citizens have fought to secure and that if we do not exercise our rights and freedoms they will be forever lost to us.<br />
<br />
A system exists that was specifically designed to establish procedures and protocols to ensure that the Government over "We The People" did not grow so big or so powerful that it could forget that it is "OF the People, BY the People and For the People". As time and technology both advance, We The People need to be even more diligent in our efforts to ensure that Our government does not forget itself or our rights and freedoms.<br />
<br />
Semper Vigilantes<br />
<br />
</div>
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-41372229253179991992014-03-05T18:46:00.000-08:002014-03-05T18:46:29.545-08:00ROMA "GODMOTHER" SENTENCED IN FLAFor one of the biggest stories effecting the Gypsy / Travel Crime Families, the media on the left coast has been decidedly quiet as Rose Marks, the "God-Mother" of the Marks Rom or clan was sentenced to just over 10 years for her part in the fortune telling fraud cases that she and her family orchestrated. In addition, a great majority of her family plead guilty to lesser charges and the ironically, the Judge who presided over the case was not really sympathetic towards the victims. <br />
<br />
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra indicated that he found it difficult to understand how educated men and women could fall prey to the Marks Rom or family scams. It is astounding to me that a Federal Judge could not wrap his head around the methods that Gypsies employ to take financial advantage of their victims. It's simple, they listen. They listen to what their prey relates and then mold their schemes specifically for each unsuspecting and God fearing subject and then they adapt their stories along the way as the plot of their victim's life unfolds.<br />
<br />
They are master manipulators who are trained from birth to take up their roll in the family business. Instead of attending pre-school and kindergarten, the Roma children are molded from the youngest of ages to listen intently to what their victims say and equally as importantly, to what they don't say and then they play into those needs, desires, weaknesses and all the while, embed themselves into every aspect of their target's life. <br />
<br />
They form an absolute co-dependent relationship where the victim eventually cannot make a single decision without first consulting their "spiritual advisor" and friend. In many cases, the gypsy convinces their prey that they were related in a prior life and most importantly, they pray together. They pray for divine intervention and that God will help them with whatever issue is at hand and then, the fortune teller simply tells the unsuspecting yet highly intelligent and highly functional victim that God spoke to them and told them that somehow, money would solve the problem. That money of course has to be sacrificed or blessed in some way for the psychic to be able to help their "friend" and the con runs for as long as the victim has money and a willingness to part with it.<br />
<br />
Once the prey wises up, they are either too embarrassed that they were so easily manipulated that they cannot or will not report the losses or they are intimidated into remaining silent. Either way, with profits in the millions, the Rom is not going to let their livelihood go lightly. The Prosecutors and Judicial Officers of the land need to get in-depth training on the methods of the Travelers and more importantly develop a willingness to understand that these are not victimless crimes.<br />
<br />
When more gypsies begin to be successfully prosecuted, these crimes will at last begin to diminish.<br />
<br />
See the underlying story here: <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
<a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-psychic-rose-marks-sentenced-20140303,0,4722066,full.story">http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-psychic-rose-marks-sentenced-20140303,0,4722066,full.story</a> </span>M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-10037678156257141012014-01-29T17:01:00.003-08:002014-01-29T17:01:59.938-08:00What the heck did President Obama say?<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><strong><u>Last night I watched and listened to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address.</u> </strong></span></div>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Today, I found and read the transcript because I was plagued with a burning need to find out if what I thought I heard the President say is really what had been declared by him. Here is the direct quote from the full transcript:</span><br />
<span style="color: red; font-size: large;"><strong></strong></span><br />
<span style="color: red; font-size: large;"><strong>That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.) And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world.</strong></span><br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">I found this of particular interest and simply want to examine it briefly in light of the law suites against the government for the violations of our Constitutionally protected rights to reasonable expectations of privacy and against unwarranted searches and seizures, etc.. as written into the 4th Amendment (see blog below). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">So what the President said again was:</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"><u>"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated.</u> (Applause.) And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Just looking at that first portion, President Obama has said that there is nothing wrong with the surveillance programs currently spying on normal everyday Americans. Citizens who have never even been a blip on the NSA's radar in the past and now, with no reasonable suspicion and absolutely no probable cause, the Government has devised a system through the FISA Court wherein they can obtain letters authorizing them to force private companies to turn over their information on completely innocent American's. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">If, as the President would have us believe, there is absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about these programs, why then would he have declared in his State of the Union Address:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: red;"><u>"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated.</u> (Applause.)"</span></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">If it was not broken, why on earth would he be working with Congress to reform it to ensure that the privacy of ordinary people is not being violated?</span><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The President's closing portion of that train of thought was:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">"And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- <u>because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."</u></span></strong><br />
<strong><u><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"></span></u></strong><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">If this president is truly concerned about remaining true to our constitutional ideals, why has he not suspended this program and demanded that the NSA, the FBI and the Government at large, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as sworn and immediately go back to obtaining warrants supported by probable cause to obtain the records of the citizens that the government is there to serve?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Remember that this is the same President who said that American's need to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy. </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Here is the applicable quote as taken from Huffington Post:</span><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>"I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved," Obama said when questioned by reporters at a health care event in San Jose, Calif.</strong></span><br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><span style="color: red;"><u>"It's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience," he said. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society.</u></span> And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity."</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Remember that when asked in open Court to give one single solitary example of this program ever having worked to identify and thwart a pending act of terrorism against the United States or it's citizens' the government was unable to do so. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Since there is no quantifiable measure of success with this program and in that the President himself says that there must be reform to ensure that the <span style="color: red;"><strong><u>"that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated."</u> </strong></span><span style="color: black;">shouldn't this government admit that it crossed the lines and take every possible step to bring itself back in check </span><span style="color: red;"><strong><u>"by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."</u></strong></span></span><br />
<strong><u><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"></span></u></strong><br />
<strong><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Semper Vigilantes</span></u></strong><br />
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-24200717236812273802014-01-20T11:10:00.001-08:002014-01-20T11:10:18.579-08:00We the People vs. the NSA et al,<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<strong><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-large;">We The People vs The NSA, et al</span></u></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
For few of those who will read this will it come as a surprise that the Government of These United States is actively spying on its citizens. Most of us have a basic understanding of The Fourth Amendment to The Constitution and that states:<br />
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">
<span style="color: red;">Fourth Amendment</span></h1>
<article about="/constitution/fourth_amendment" class="node-9336 node node-constitution view-mode-full clearfix" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded">
<h2>
<span style="color: red;">Amendment IV</span></h2>
<span style="color: red;">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</article><span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><em>In his speech given on January 17, 2014, President Obama stated:</em></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><strong>"In fact, even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. In the 1960s government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. <u>And probably in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens.</u> In the long twilight struggle against communism, <em><u>we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security."</u></em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<em>President Obama continued by admitting the "supercomputers are sifting through the data and that there is a recognized potential for abuse": </em><br />
<br />
<strong>"Second, the combination of increased<u> digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads</u> that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. <u><em>But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse."</em></u></strong><br />
<br />
<em>When addressing our professionals within the intelligence gathering community, President Obama clearly admits the vulnerabilities of the U.S. citizens reasonable expectations of privacy when he says:</em><br />
<br />
<strong>"They’ve got electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram. And they know, more than most of us, <em><u>the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded and email and text and messages are stored and even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the GPS on our phones."</u></em></strong><br />
<br />
<em>The President then addresses the seriousness of the threats to privacy we suffer when he states:</em><br />
<br />
<strong>"Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. <u><em>There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. "</em></u></strong><br />
<br />
<em>The good President then legitimizes the fears that every citizen of These United States should recognize when he says:</em><br />
<br />
<strong>"But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. <u><em>Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us. We won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached.</em></u> Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power."</strong><br />
<br />
<em>So now the President wants us to feel secure in the knowledge that He is taking the following "affirmative" steps to keep "<span style="color: red;"><strong>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,...</strong></span><span style="color: black;">" When he says"</span></em><br />
<br />
<strong>"And today I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress.</strong><br />
<strong> </strong><strong> </strong><br />
<strong>First, <em><u>I have approved a new presidential directive</u></em> for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. <u><em><span style="color: blue;">This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities.</span></em></u> It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances, our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. <u><em><span style="color: blue;">And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team."</span></em></u></strong><br />
<strong><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u></strong><br />
<span style="color: black;"><em>So in one breath, The President warns us that <strong><u><span style="color: red;">"it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us. We won't abuse the data we collect"</span></u></strong> then he says that "<strong><u>He</u></strong>" has granted "<strong><u>himself</u>" </strong>by virtue or a new Presidential directive stronger <strong><u><span style="color: red;">"Executive Branch Oversight of our intelligence activities."</span></u></strong> Isn't this truly the fox guarding the chicken coop? The President is warning us not to trust the government that spied on dissidents in the past but to trust Him and his appointee's because they are somehow more trustworthy than their predecessors" </em></span><br />
<br />
<strong>"This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months, the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke. <u><em><span style="color: blue;">This program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provide a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls, metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization."</span></em></u></strong><br />
<strong><em><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u></em></strong><br />
The same President who would have us believe that he and his cabinet are more trustworthy than those who have gone before then completely contradicts his own prior statements. Remember earlier in this speech when the President said; "<strong><u><span style="color: red;"> digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads</span></u></strong>" and we are to simply take his word for it that our individual data is secured while that sifting is taking place to locate potential threats to the United States? <br />
<br />
<em>During the recent inquiries into this entire debacle, the Government was loathe to express one single solitary instance when this form of intelligence gathering and "sifting" had lead to the identity of one single instance where a terrorist plot had been identified and / or thwarted.</em> <br />
<br />
<em><strong>We the People </strong>must stop following blindly a Government that admits that it sacrifices the rights and liberties provided us in the very Constitution in exchange for some alleged additional securities against terrorist threats, plots or attacks. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>Our forefathers would have been shot or hanged for treason had they been discovered while attempting to forge the lifeblood that has become this great nation. They were willing to take the risks necessary to stand up against tyrants and injustices and <strong>We the People </strong>now more than even need to regain oversight of our Government, it's policies and it's actions. If we do not begin to hold them accountable, who will? At what point will we all wake up in an Orwellian state with no liberties or justices for any of us?</em><br />
M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-43151280513075079892012-07-20T09:59:00.003-07:002012-07-20T09:59:44.093-07:00BOLO - Help Catch This GuyI am asking for assistance in locating the guy who physically attacked a dear friend of mine in an elevator at a Santa Monica Office Building on July 11th, 2012. This creep laid in wait in the lowest level of the parking garage and followed her into an elevator. He wrapped a towel around her head and told her "Don't worry, this will all be over soon". <br />
<br />
This young lady fought off her attacker but he was able to get away. I have real concerns that this guy has done this before and since he was willing to attack at 9:00 AM on a busy day for the office building, it may show that he is at an escalated point in his assaults.<br />
<br />
Please review the Press Release from Santa Monica P.D. and forward this to everyone you know. If you recognize this dirt bag, contact Sergeant Richard Lewis of the Santa Monica Police Department at (310) 458-8462 or myself at (866) 866-2268.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjblPYLFUO_N8Emo6BsC32HRKqS9k9Opk2usr7Z0gx_lL-pGi-5xUiDdo5PoHGWnXKU4INfxUTKlTfMYYlKHe1a-sbKygVgTcTwLgdtSSO2tqvbIyalST9colFMNzIen7EO7uqBdIFMxxA/s1600/BOLO1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" hda="true" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjblPYLFUO_N8Emo6BsC32HRKqS9k9Opk2usr7Z0gx_lL-pGi-5xUiDdo5PoHGWnXKU4INfxUTKlTfMYYlKHe1a-sbKygVgTcTwLgdtSSO2tqvbIyalST9colFMNzIen7EO7uqBdIFMxxA/s640/BOLO1.jpg" width="491" /></a></div>
<br />M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-39864520092301135082012-06-04T13:19:00.000-07:002012-06-04T13:19:02.826-07:00Dazed and ConfusedAs a Veteran of the United States Army and the father of an active duty Marine who recently returned from his second tour in Afghanistan, I am deeply bothered.<br />
<br />
On Memorial Day, I was disappointed to see President Obama lay the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns and instead of rendering the hand salute in honor and tribute to the fallen souls buried there, he placed his hand over his heart during the playing of taps. All the other Military personal present paid the proper respect by rendering the customary hand salute. <br />
<br />
I like so many others immediately imagined the debate that must have taken place when President Obama took office about should he or should he not salute. I came to the conclusion that some political advisers more worldly and knowledgeable than I must have decided that the current President should refrain from rendering the hand salute because he had never served his country. At that point I had appeased myself and although disappointed that those fallen heroes did not receive the proper respect earned, that the counter argument was that the President, although the current Commander in Chief, had not served and therefore should refrain from saluting as it might cause even more controversy.<br />
<br />
I truly tried to dismiss this from my active thoughts but last night as I sat watching the news, I was shown footage of President Obama getting off of Marine One on several different occasions and each time, he rendered and received the Hand Salute of the Marines pulling security for him. This was seriously a WTF moment for me. I am not trying to influence a political agenda. Personally I want to vote - No confidence but I do have to voice my disapproval of a President who on one hand will salute his active duty Marine Guards but on the other refuses to show the same level of respect for those who gave their lives to ensure his freedom.<br />
<br />
I wish someone, anyone could explain to me why the sitting President of These United States would show such a blatant lack of respect for those who paid the ultimate price to win our freedom.<br />M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-17044798206451887222012-05-11T10:52:00.002-07:002012-05-11T10:56:23.293-07:00GAO WHERE ARE YOU NOWAmerica needs you Harry Truman. Years ago your desk in the oval office proudly displayed the sign "THE BUCK STOPS HERE". At that time, the general understanding of the sentiment was that YOU, the President of these United States were the ultimate in accountability and that with you, lay all credit and blame.<br />
<br />
In recent years, it would seem that the sign still resides on the most powerful desk in the world but that the sentiment behind it has changed to reflect the end game of the political fund raising dollars into the private coffers and ventures of those who seek to hold that office. PLEASE note that I have had this thought for way more years than the Democrats have held the White House. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue this is a systemic issue allowing the tax payers dollars to bear the costs of the fund raising efforts of the incumbent President.<br />
<br />
Last night George Clooney hosted a private gala at his residence where those who were able paid $40,000.00 per person for the honor of dining with the President and Mr. Clooney. Look, I don't begrudge those who can, spending their dollars to have dinner with the most powerful man in the world. It isn't my money. I don't care that the money leaves the State of California while the State is on the brink of bankruptcy. <br />
<br />
What is really insulting to me is that the sitting President of the United States of America can use three aircraft, who knows how many Secret Service whore mongers, not to mention the local resources of a financially distressed State and City to raise some record 15 million dollars for his campaign and have NO obligation to off set the amount of tax dollars spent to "go begging". <br />
<br />
Some years ago, people were enraged and astounded when Air Force One wasted tax payer dollars sitting on the tarmac while Mr. President got his hair cut but no one questions that it takes Air Force One and two other Military Transport Aircraft to move the President's motorcade and support personnel with equipment. That hotel rooms must be paid for, meals per diems, fuel for the aircraft, I would suppose that airport fees must be paid and the list goes on and on. Why is it that the Pres is not required to have the Government Accounting Office look in to the costs of these trips which are truly personal and make the President repay those costs before pocketing the remainder of his new found fortunes?<br />
<br />
What next? Will "We The People" be asked to fund the costs of schlepping Presidential Hopefuls from fund raiser to fund raiser? I reviewed the ballot initiatives to the best of my ability in the past several elections and I note the box to give one dollar to the Presidential Candidate remains but no where was I able to locate a box to be checked or a chad to be left hanging that says - spend my tax dollars on fund raising trips. <br />
<br />
Oh and for the record I think that when the good sitting President goes out to help local politicions win their races, they, the locals, shouldd have to pay for those same costs too. <br />
<br />
How many homeless could be housed or hungry could be fed with the amount of tax dollars that are being spent on campaign fund rasing junkets?<br />
<br />M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-59388340259835826052012-04-11T09:42:00.002-07:002012-04-11T12:20:30.222-07:00About SGT STEINOK, I keep getting messages about "Defending SGT STEIN" and after much and serious contemplation, I am compelled to offer the following.<br />
<br />
<strong>The following express MY OPINIONS and my opinions only. Those opinions are based on my lengthy and honorable service to this country in the United States Military AND that during that time, I was a Military Police Person, Military Police Investigator and Senior Investigator as well as the Assistant Operations Sergeant / Operations Sergeant for several Military Installations both in the US and abroad. I AM HONORABLY retired.</strong><br />
<br />
In that NONE of us were ACTUALLY present at his hearing AND in that we only know what the media would like us to hear perhaps the voice of reason is needed. <br />
<br />
Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is commonly referred to as "The General Article". <br />
<br />
<a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/134.htm">http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/134.htm</a><br />
<br />
The military uses this article when the specifics of other Articles do not exactly apply to an offense. In every story that I have read, there is NO MENTION that the good Sergeant was charged or convicted of violating Article 92 of the UCMJ which is "Disobeying a Lawful Order". <br />
<br />
<a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm">http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm</a><br />
<br />
Please note that in the "Elements of Proof" this Article states that there must have been an order, that the order was lawful, that the person subject to the code knew the order existed and that he or she failed to obey it. IF as some would have us believe, SGT Stein was dishonorably discharged because he failed to obey a lawful order, the military would have charged him with such, NOT used the General Article as they did. Here are the "Elements of Proof" for Article 134 as listed in the UCMJ:<br />
<br />
<ul><strong>(1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and </strong></ul><ul></ul><strong></strong><br />
<ul><strong>(2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. </strong></ul><br />
Stein was charged under 134 for acting in a manner that would be prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the military.". That is it. That is what he was "convicted of".<br />
<br />
In my humble opinion, it APPEARS as though the ACTUAL issue is not that Sgt Stein spoke his mind or even necessarily the jargon that he used to do so, but admittedly, some of what he said could have been charged "LOOSELY" under the military laws regarding disrespect to a commissioned officer - however in that the Commander in Chief is not actually Commissioned, even that becomes suspect. What Stein SEEMS to have done is to have taken up the banner and initiated or advanced <strong>"The Military Tea Party"</strong>. Also note that he was not charged with "Sedition". Sedition is chargeable under Article 94 of the UCMJ. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm94.htm">http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm94.htm</a><br />
<br />
<strong>(a) "Any person subject to this chapter who-- </strong><br />
<br />
<ul>(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny; </ul><ul>(2)<strong> with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; </strong></ul><br />
We are all briefed during Basic Training / Boot Camp that although we can attend political rallies, we are prohibited from doing so in uniform. YES, there are exceptions where the Military is asked to be present AND has granted dispensation for a color guard or for other reasons and we all know that every politician wants some photo op with men and women in uniform BUT what Stein SEEMS to have done was START or ADVANCE a political party or movement, and that he did so using his military service as a platform.<br />
<br />
Some in the media would have us believethat Stein stated he ould disobey an order b the Commander in Chief. I believe what he said is that he would not follow an unlawful order order. All in the services since the My Lei Masacre with Lt. Calley in Viet Nam are taught NOT to follow orders blindly but rather to obey LAWFUL orders. Clearly the orders given at My Lei were illegal and those who followed them were punished. See:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley</a><br />
NOW WAIT - before you go throwing stones, I believe that Stein was used to advance an initiative at it is working. I also believe that it is laughable that those who are sworn to "Protect the Constitution of The United States Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic", are not allowed the same protections it promises themselves. An active duty military member does NOT have the right to Freedom of Speech even though they are expected to be willing to fight even unto death to defend our rights to the same. <br />
<br />
TWO LAST POINTS OF ORDER - <br />
<br />
1) Sgt Stein is set to ETS or End his Time in Service in July of this year. That is three months from now. Why wouldn't the Military Powers simply bar him from reenlisting? Well, what better way to quell a ground swell then to "Set an Example" of the good Sergeant? The Military has been using peer pressure and setting examples for as long as they have been in business. <br />
<br />
2) Some media would have us believe that Stein will loose all of his V.A. benefits based on the OTH Discharge (Other Than Honorable). I did a bit more research and found:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_discharge">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_discharge</a><br />
<br />
If one takes a minute to read the portions of this information as it applies to OTH Discharges it becomes clear that loss of V.A. Benefits is NOT a result of this type of action bu rather one that comes from a Bad Conduct Discharge. <br />
<br />
What is the quote? <strong>"THE ROOTS OF THE TREE OF FREEDOM MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS."</strong><br />
<br />
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:<br />
<br />
Question authority AND the media.M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-50851495247089393652012-03-21T10:09:00.000-07:002012-03-21T10:09:38.275-07:00Radio Resolution by L.A. City CounselFor those of you who do not reside in the Greater Los Angeles area, welcome to the newest "ONLY IN L.A." chapter of worlds wildest politicians. "Today, the Los Angeles City Counsel led by council members Herb Wesson, Jan Perry and Bernard Parks, as well as several minority groups" will be debating a "resolution" which according to KTLA Los Angeles states in part:<br />
<br />
<strong>Sponsors of the resolution say John and Ken and other KFI hosts have a history of "deplorable racist and sexist remarks.<br />
<br />
"The resolution calls on KFI to reign in its talk show hosts.<br />
<br />
It states, in part: "Derogatory language used by some radio personnel has no place on public airwaves in the Great City of Los Angeles or anywhere in America.<br />
<br />
"The City Council urges KFI 640 AM's management to do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not... promote racist and sexist slurs.""</strong><br />
<br />
Brought to you by the same folks who think it is in the best interest of the law abiding citizens of Los Angeles to allow illegal immigrants to get California Driver's Licenses, they are now certainly inviting even more unchecked responses from the likes of Clear Channel, Rush Limbaugh and John and Ken to protect their Constitutional Rights to both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. <br />
<br />
If Rush, John or Ken were African American Radio Personalities would the politico's be as offended by their use of the term "Ho"? How many rap lyrics aired on the radio waves of America and produced right here in Los Angeles, contain references to illegal drugs or sexually degrading terms like; "slut", "whore", "ho" or worse?<br />
<br />
To keep the record straight, a "Resolution" in this context is defined as:<br />
<br />
<span class="mw-headline" id="Non-binding"><strong>Non-binding</strong></span><br />
<div class="rellink relarticle mainarticle"><strong>Main article: </strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding_resolution" title="Non-binding resolution"><strong>Non-binding resolution</strong></a></div><strong>In a house of a </strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature" title="Legislature"><strong>legislature</strong></a><strong>, the term </strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding_resolution" title="Non-binding resolution"><strong>non-binding resolution</strong></a><strong> refers to measures that do not become </strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law" title="Law"><strong>laws</strong></a><strong>. This is used to differentiate those measures from a </strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law)" title="Bill (proposed law)"><strong>bill</strong></a><strong>, which is also a resolution in the technical sense. <u>The resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another </u></strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction" title="Jurisdiction"><strong>jurisdiction</strong></a><strong><u>, or being protected by a </u></strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution" title="Constitution"><strong>constitution</strong></a><strong><u>.</u> An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's </strong><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troops" title="Troops"><strong>troops</strong></a><strong> in </strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle" title="Battle"><strong>battle</strong></a><strong>, which carries no </strong><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal" title="Legal"><strong>legal</strong></a><strong> weight, but is adopted for </strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_support" title="Moral support"><strong>moral support</strong></a><strong>.</strong><br />
<br />
So at best, this is a hollow action and waste of tax payer time and money in some misguided effort to garner support of those on the political left to decry those who exercise their 1st Amendment Rights to free speech. The "resolution" cannot impinge those rights in any way. It can only invite continue debate and discussion which in fact creates greater polarity and must almost certainly widen the racial gap. <br />
<br />
Yes, this is big city politics at its best. The presidential election looms on the horizon and polarity means big money from campaign contributors on both sides of the fence. Those on the extreme right will certainly open their wallets to support Rush and his fan base grow. Those on the extreme left will equally rally behind the banner of ethnic and woman's rights. <br />
<br />
Will it ever matter that there is now allegedly a new sex tape of Whitney Houston which might to some small degree justify the use of the term "ho" regarding her behaviour? And, if the toxicology report comes back that she was again using illegal substances, inclusive of crack cocaine, would anyone feel it necessary to pro offer an apology to John and Ken for what could potentially be an expression of a substantiated fact? I doubt it but why are we wasting our tax dollars on this anyway?<br />
<br />
And lest we forget; "Freedom isn't free". As one who has served in defense of the Constitution and its Amendments I learned that it was equally as important for me to be willing to fight to the death to preserve your right to burn my flag in protest as it was for me to stand in defense of my right to fly it. <br />
<br />
The "Resolution" is hollow and can best be discribed as a political chess move. <br />
<br />
Check - It's your move LA. City Counsel.M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-66965049905220634842012-03-06T11:31:00.001-08:002012-03-10T14:34:42.257-08:00Thank You For Your SupportAs some of you know, several years ago I started a toy drive to help those in need during the holiday season. The short version is that my youngest son was born on Christmas Day and when he joined the United States Marines, he was forward deployed during the holidays. Since it was difficult at best to send him presents there, we did what we could, I started a campaign to receive toys from those willing to give and for the first two seasons, we delivered those toys to Toys 4 Tots locally. <br />
<br />
This past holiday season, I was blessed to have the continued support of some amazing organizations and individuals and through a ton of Can Do attitude and Never Give Up determination, I was able to gain permission from the Commanding General of Camp Pendleton to become the second organization in the history of the Base to be allowed to donate our toys and gifts to the families of the men and women serving this Great Nation. <br />
<br />
All in all, the combined efforts of those who were involved resulted in what is now known as the North Pole Foundation being born. They are also responsible for 9 different Certificates of Appreciation, Letters of Accommodation and four Challenge Coins being awarded to the North Pole Foundation. None of these honors would have been possible without their help. In the near future, I hope to be able to secure a modest warehouse space with an office to house both the Private Investigations business and the North Pole Foundation. Please stay tuned to <a href="http://www.northpolefoundation.org/">http://www.northpolefoundation.org/</a> for up dates and events as they become available.<br />
<br />
I could never have made this happen without the support and love of all of those who made their own events happen and allowed their respective organizations to be a part of something that does such great work. We will continue. This year we are working on being able to duplicate our efforts in Arizona and with the continued support of all of those who gave of their time, energy and yes, personal finances, we will grow and continue to make differences in the lives of those who protect our rights to be who we are.<br />
<br />
Please take a brief moment to review the video and join me in thanking all of those who contributed and more importantly, all of those who serve. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyTJsCTsuFYC-ishQLKJNN8le0tW_kb9amu_o9LY8oaMLa9RgnJMwn0TWEILkiwguL4PC-HCzE-BZewjbuhWQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
Again, thank you to each and every one who gave.<br />
<br />
Do not aspire to be part of something - aspire to create something others aspire to be a part of.M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-34456451956146535972012-02-24T08:45:00.000-08:002012-02-24T08:45:05.633-08:00Ask Not For Whom The Bell TollsTo paraphrase the immortal words of the great Edgar Allen Poe, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls"... ask instead why the politicians are ringing it in the first place. I watched intentently yesterday as the mayor of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles Police Chief and the Los Angeles County Sheriff all rang the "public safety issue" bell while announcing that they support some form of a drivers license for illegal aliens in the State of California. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? <br />
<br />
Folks I am a retired cop albeit Military, and I have been to this rodeo before where politico's would insult my intellegence with their lies or half truths but this is off the charts on the WTF Index. Charlie Beck, the LAPD Chief had the unmittigated gaul to state that the reason illegal aliens don't have insurance on their vehicles, don't have the vehicles registered in their names and flee the scenes of accidents is because WE force them to drive illegally here. WE are somehow at fault that they chose to enter this Country illegally and if WE would only give them some form of a California drivers license, that would fix the entire problem instantly. Somehow the illegal immigrants would flock to LINE UP at the DMV, a government office, and tell the Government Employee there that they are here illegally but want to get their names and addresses listed in the Government computers so that they can be found in the future. This way, they are certain to go out and get insurance, properly register their cars and trucks and hold their heads high when in the future they are stopped by police and asked for their dirvers license, proof of registration and insurance and proudly hand the officer their Illegal Imigrant Drivers License to ensure that the officer profiles them as such Are we then to have a moritorium that says, IF the illegal immigrant decides to register they cannot be deported or detained when they get pulled over. Look at the moral outrage in Arizona where the Sheriff was sued by the Justice Department for requiring Deputies to ask for proof of status when stopping someone of hispanic looking decent. Now we have a government initiative to perfect that system in the most liberal state in the union and everyone thinks it is ok because the "public safety bell" was rung in the process.<br />
<br />
I am appalled to say the least that the politicians leading Los Angeles, and make not mistake, at this moment, Chief Beck and Sheriff Baca are absolutely politically motivated, have attempted to make me believe that this initiative has merit and will somehow make my existance in Los Angeles more safe. If we start with the premiss that the best preditor of the future is the past and extrapolate out from there, someone who broke the law of the land by entering this Country illegally will almost certainly not suddenly become a law abiding citizen, put themselves on the radar as being here illegal and run to the DMV. <br />
<br />
There is an excellent line in Smokey and the Bandit where Burt Reynolds says "I have an excellent bullshit detector. I can tell when someone is pissing on my boots and telling me it's raining". Mayor, Chief and Sheriff - This ain't rain.M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-54955093493722172172011-12-12T17:30:00.000-08:002011-12-12T17:30:04.715-08:00Tis the SeasonEvery year for the past three years, I have been blessed with an opportunity to pay back and pay forward a bit of the Holiday Magic. Years ago, more than I care to acknowledge, I was a young Staff Sergeant (E-6) in the United States Army. I was married with three children, well in truth, the third child was actually born that Christmas Day. At the time, I qualified for full welfare in about 48 of the 50 states and I knew that my family was going to have to do without that Christmas because I believed in my patriotic duty. When I say that they were going to have to do without, I mean, no tree, no Roast Who Beast and mostly little to no presents.<br />
<br />
I woke up on the morning of Christmas Eve to find that someone had delivered a Christmas Tree, a box with a complete Christmas Feast and presents addressed to my children by name from Santa. I was more than touched. To this day I do not know who that Secret Santa was and it no longer matters. What matters is making certain that that kindness is never forgotten.<br />
<br />
Fast forward some 21 years to my youngest son's announcement that he had joined the United States Marines. He was to be deployed to Afghanistan for Holloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas / his birthday, New Years and much more. I knew that I needed to do something to create some positive energy in the Universe to help ensure this child's safe return from war. I also realized that sending him Christmas and Birthday gifts on the battlefield was not really a sound idea. <br />
<br />
That is how "Klaus" was born. I started a Toy Drive among many organizations that I belong to or am affiliated with. The first year, this effort raised some 1,200 toys that we donated to Toys 4 Tots. We also hooked up with new found friends and sent 1,500 care packages to men and women serving on active duty abroad. We sent 50 holiday meals to needy families and we got donations from television studios and professional organizations as well as people from every walk of life and we made a difference.<br />
<br />
Last year, we sent another 1,600 care packages, another 50 holiday meal baskets, we filled 100 stockings for children in battered womens shelters, we filled 1,200 care packages for homeless with creature comfort items and we got a bakery to donate 1,500 speciality baked goods with hand written notes - one for every vet in the Westwood V.A. Hospital. In addition, we doubled the number of toys donated to Toys 4 Tots with approximately 3,200 toys.<br />
<br />
This year, I have been unable to keep up with an accurate toy count. You see, I started early on and laid the foundation to have the toys delivered not to Toys 4 Tots, but rather to the Armed Services YMCA on Camp Pendleton. It was a matter of principle as I felt it essential to get those toys to the families of the men and women serving this great nation. This was no easy task and I believe that I should get a waiver on qualifying for the Summer Olympic Games as a hurdler based on the number of them I was required to jump over to get this mission accomplished. <br />
<br />
The point is, the Elves and I were unstoppable and we didn't waiver or falter. On Sunday, December 11th, we filled an 18 foot U-Haul Box Truck three quarters of the way high with toys we had collected. New, Unopened and unwrapped Christmas Presents for the children of Camp Pendleton. When we arrived on Base with the toys, we were escorted to a 150 foot long Quansette Hut that had a shelf unit about 4 feet wide in a secure cage running the entire length of the building. I was directed to pull the truck inside the structure and we filled the entire top shelf from side to side and end to end with the boxes and bags of toys.<br />
<br />
This Firday, I will be picking up another 56 boxes of goods and goodies to go with the 26 that were already donated and didn't fit in this truck load and on Saturday, we will be delivering these items as well. <br />
<br />
This doesn't come close to meeting the needs of those in financial distress this year. What it does do is demonstrate how one old retired Staff Sergeant with a dream and a plan can make a dent in the need index. I encourage everyone to dig just a touch deeper and to do two things:<br />
<br />
1) Buy ONE extra gift this season and donate it to Toys 4 Tots, The Salvation Army or a kid on the street and tell them Happy Holidays. <br />
<br />
2) Every time you see a man or woman serving this country, take two seconds to say "Thank You" for being willing to pay the ultiamte price to protect and defend my freedom's. They are not free.<br />
<br />
Remember that "All gave some and some gave all" so that you could enjoy the freedoms afforded to you by living in the United States.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OYN1kA0sSP2ErD1plZSP8HrbXDiQ9oE0SfB80DuR-l10scdz31kkI9djlxLdbFSS3sPhiXqckDoTawq2jNcjE0kN67cU55vjRMP-LbdlBBpdtsprUj-elH8AxlcsW83t-16Gk4hp1DM/s1600/Klaus%2527+Sleigh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" oda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OYN1kA0sSP2ErD1plZSP8HrbXDiQ9oE0SfB80DuR-l10scdz31kkI9djlxLdbFSS3sPhiXqckDoTawq2jNcjE0kN67cU55vjRMP-LbdlBBpdtsprUj-elH8AxlcsW83t-16Gk4hp1DM/s320/Klaus%2527+Sleigh.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Happy Holiday'sM. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-6590395198141310802011-04-19T17:02:00.000-07:002011-04-19T19:14:00.303-07:00Cyber HarassmentIt can happen to the best of us. One day you are sitting at your computer, minding your own business and then for reasons that perhaps no one can comprehend, someone starts to malign, threaten and harrass you and then sets out on a course designed to destroy your otherwise good name. What can you do? <br />
<br />
Most states have laws against Cyber Bullying but recently I came to learn that those are almost always exclusive to school aged children and afford no protection to the adults of this land. I also found that although the person or people attempting to ruin your name and life may hate you, unless you are gay or lesbian, or of an ethnicity or religious persuassion that is specifically protected, it is almost certain that it will not be classified as a "hate crime". So what can one do, REALLY?<br />
<br />
This is the part where it is again important for me to say that I am NOT an attorney. I am not licensed to nor am I attempting to practice law. In the eyes of the law, only a license attorney can give you "legal advice". Please do not attempt to construe anything in this blog as legal advice. It is simply information that I gathered an am willing to share.<br />
<br />
And now, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast:<br />
<br />
In California, the law is pretty clear about several things.<br />
<br />
1) Civil Harrassment has the exact same definition, almost exactly word for word in the laws that afford the injured party the right to seek the protection of a Temporary Restraining Order and later a Permanent Restraining Order. The applicable verbage can be found at: <br />
<br />
California Code of Civil Procedure:<br />
<br />
527.6. (a) A person who has suffered <strong>harassment</strong> as defined in<br />
subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an<br />
injunction prohibiting <strong>harassment</strong> as provided in this section.<br />
(b) For the purposes of this section, "<strong>harassment</strong>" is unlawful<br />
violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful<br />
course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously<br />
alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate<br />
purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a<br />
reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must<br />
actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.<br />
As used in this subdivision:<br />
(1) "Unlawful violence" is any assault or battery, or stalking as<br />
prohibited in Section 646.9 of the Penal Code, but shall not include<br />
lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others.<br />
(2) "Credible threat of violence" is a knowing and willful<br />
statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person<br />
in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate<br />
family, and that serves no legitimate purpose.<br />
(3) "Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a<br />
series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a<br />
continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual,<br />
making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending<br />
harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including,<br />
but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice<br />
mail, fax, or computer e-mail. Constitutionally protected activity is<br />
not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."<br />
(c) Upon filing a petition for an injunction under this section,<br />
the plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order in accordance<br />
with Section 527, except to the extent this section provides a rule<br />
that is inconsistent. A temporary restraining order may be issued<br />
with or without notice upon an affidavit that, to the satisfaction of<br />
the court, shows reasonable proof of <strong>harassment</strong> of the plaintiff by<br />
the defendant, and that great or irreparable harm would result to the<br />
plaintiff. In the discretion of the court, and on a showing of good<br />
cause, a temporary restraining order or injunction, issued under this<br />
section may include other named family or household members who<br />
reside with the plaintiff. A temporary restraining order issued under<br />
this section shall remain in effect, at the court's discretion, for<br />
a period not to exceed 15 days, or, if the court extends the time for<br />
hearing under subdivision (d), not to exceed 22 days, unless<br />
otherwise modified or terminated by the court.<br />
<br />
As stated above, it is vital that the person being harassed <strong><em><u>believe </u></em></strong>that the threat or offer of violence is real. If someone says; "Get out of my way or I will kill you." It is a conditional statement over which you have the power to avoid the actual violence. In that scenerio, one simply steps aside and removes that threat or offer of bodily harm. If - then statements are generally able to be defended but should actual violence occure than the applicable law changes to battery or some other offense as deemed appropriate by the authorities.<br />
<br />
<br />
2) It is important to note that obtaining, or attempting to obtain a Civil Harrasment Restraining Order does not preclude the injured party from filing a "tort" action against the other person. In fact, getting a TRO which uses the same elements of proof as does the tort action for civil damages, could possibly be considered as prima facia evidence that the claim was indeed founded. Under Evidence Code 452, an injured party could ask the Trial Court to take "Judicial Notice" of the issuance of the Restraining Order and, in that it was in fact issued, use that to substantiate the claim of Civil Harrassment.<br />
<br />
3) According to the California Penal Code, Harrassment is:<br />
<br />
653.2. (a) Every person who, with intent to place another person in<br />
reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other<br />
person's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication<br />
device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose<br />
of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact,<br />
injury, or <strong>harassment</strong>, by a third party, electronically distributes,<br />
publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading,<br />
personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a<br />
digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a<br />
harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to<br />
incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor<br />
punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more<br />
than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and<br />
imprisonment.<br />
(b) For purposes of this section, "electronic communication device"<br />
includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cell phones, computers,<br />
Internet Web pages or sites, Internet phones, hybrid<br />
cellular/Internet/wireless devices, personal digital assistants<br />
(PDAs), video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic<br />
communication" has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section<br />
2510(12) of Title 18 of the United States <strong>Code</strong>.<br />
(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:<br />
<u><em><strong> (1) "Harassment" means a knowing and willful course of conduct<br />
directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider<br />
as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or<br />
seriously terrorizing the person and that serves no legitimate<br />
purpose.</strong></em></u> (2) "Of a harassing nature" means of a nature that a reasonable<br />
person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying,<br />
seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing of the person and that<br />
serves no legitimate purpose.<br />
The key is proving that the harassment "served no legitimate purpose".<br />
<br />
4) For purposes of litigation, the venue is deemed to be where the e-mails where sent from or where they were first viewed. See Califonia Penal Code 653 (m)<br />
<br />
653m. (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or<br />
makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with<br />
another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene<br />
language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict<br />
injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any<br />
member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in<br />
this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic<br />
contacts made in good faith.<br />
(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes<br />
repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an<br />
electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or<br />
contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues<br />
from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic<br />
communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this<br />
subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts<br />
made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of<br />
business.<br />
(c) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to<br />
have been committed when and where the telephone call or calls were<br />
made or received. <strong><em><u>Any offense committed by use of an electronic<br />
communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed<br />
to have been committed when and where the electronic communication<br />
or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the<br />
recipient.</u></em></strong><br />
It is easy to see how this topic can continue but in closing, there are many other tools available to a peson who is being defamed, stalked, harassed, threatened or just bullied. There are laws that prevent someone from making your private information public and those can be addressed seperately. I have also heard that the truth is an absolute defense against slander or liable. This statement is also not completely accurate and the victim may in fact have substantial recourse under the law. Again, only an attorney who specializes in these areas can give legal advice and regarding such.<br />
<br />
M. Allen Garrison<br />
Director / Qualified Manager<br />
American Fraud Institute<br />
65 Pine Avenue, Suite 372<br />
Long Beach, California 90802<br />
(866) 866-2268<br />
<a href="mailto:director@AmericanFraudInstitute.org">director@AmericanFraudInstitute.org</a><br />
<a href="http://www.americanfraudinstitute.org/">http://www.americanfraudinstitute.org/</a><br />
CA P.I. License No. 18774M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6879074849234427227.post-49203777375597054302011-04-06T09:07:00.000-07:002011-04-06T09:59:44.679-07:00How to Hire a Private InvestigatorSo something has happened and generally it wasn't a good thing. You think that you need to hire a private investigator. You google, check the yellow pages and have even seen an ad or two on Craigs List but how do you know if the Private Investigator that you are about to hire is legitimate? In California, Private Investigators are tested and licensed by the State. California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) is the governing body that administers the Private Investigations Industry. So once you locate a potential Private Investigator, you should verify that he or she has a P.I. License that is issued by the State and that that license is in good standing. In California, you can go to:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=PI&p_qte_pgm_code=2420">http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=PI&p_qte_pgm_code=2420</a><br />
<br />
and type in either the Private Investigator business name, in my case, American Fraud Institute or his or her P.I. Number. Again in my case that would be 18774. You will also see that there is a link to search by owner / qualified manager or principle's name. <br />
<br />
Once you enter your search information, you will see the results returned. In reviewing that page, you will note that it says the license is valid or in good standing, that it is delinquent, suspended or revoked or potentially that it doesn't exist. If there is a history of disciplinary action against the investigator, there will be a clickable link to the information on file with the Bureau.<br />
<br />
If your potential private investigator is indeed licensed and that license is current, in good standing with no history of disciplinary actions, you can now move on to the next step in the process and determine whether or not the investigator has expertise that matches you particular needs. If your issue is with regards to collecting back child support from a dead beat prior spouse, hiring someone who only does Death Penalty Defense matters does not seem prudent and vice versa of course. Follow up by asking for references. If they work product was good, one of their former clients will gladly discuss their results if not the atual details of their matter.<br />
<br />
Does the investigator use sub-contractors and if so, are they themselves licensed? These are important questions because there has been a growing trend for some to hire unlicensed sub-contractors do the tasks that you are paying a premium rate to have a licensed investigator complete. You should be informed in advance if your potential private investigator is contemplating using a sub-contractor or whether or not he or she will actually be doing the work personally. Don't confuse an actual employee who works for your P.I. on a full or part time basis, who ison the payroll and who is being supervised for an unlicensed sub-contractor. Employee's are the responsibility of the employer and so is their work product. You should be told in advance whether or not the P.I. is going to use an employee and if so, will you pay a lower rate for their hourly billing?<br />
<br />
This information represents only the tip of the iceberg. If you would like more details, feel free to contact me directly at: (866) 866-2268 or <a href="mailto:director@AmericanFraudInstitute.org">director@AmericanFraudInstitute.org</a>. <br />
<br />
M. Allen Garrison<br />
Director<br />
American Fraud Institute <br />
65 Pine Avenue, Suite 372<br />
Long Beach, CA 90802<br />
Tel: (866) 866-2268<br />
Fax: (877) 514-2467<br />
e-mail: <a href="mailto:director@AmericanFraudInstitute.org">director@AmericanFraudInstitute.org</a><br />
<a href="http://www.americanfraudinstitute.org/">http://www.americanfraudinstitute.org/</a><br />
<br />
CA. P.I. License Number 18774M. Allen Garrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11496131808714701993noreply@blogger.com2