Special Delivery for the Times-Standard

HEY! Newspaper Editor do you get it?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Times Standard,
Your cartoon by Milt Priggee on page A4 is a perversion that attacks the sensibilities of all free Americans and what is right and just in American Jurisprudence.

In America , everyone is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a COURT OF LAW - don't you know?

PS. Actually, the message of the cartoon IS  accurate and correct for a country ruled by men and NOT by law.

If you don't believe me read the My Word commentary printed just below that so-called cartoon by Jeffrey Schwartz: Search warrant folly: An open letter to Paul Gallegos.

Before a judge signs a search warrant, the judge requires that the DA sign off on the warrant with a statement that the DA believes there is probable cause to issue the warrant. Mr. Gallegos should not sign off on these warrants unless -- and until -- the law enforcement agent answers Mr. Gallegos' simple question: “What facts do you have that suggest the suspected marijuana is an unlawful grow.”

Where is the "law" and the "legal" protection afforded by the law entrusted to judges when a judge issues a search warrant totally upon the worthless opinions or beliefs, whether signed or not, "the DA believes there is probable cause" of some man or woman? What happens to the these judges and district attorneys when it is proven there was NO probable cause? Do they manufacture the "probable cause" after-the-fact?

According to Butler Shaffer "the establishment does not get it. Free individuals are withdrawing their consent to be ruled. And it is free people who create the social condition of liberty, not those who simply mouth bromides." Interesting audio where Lew Rockwell talks to Butler Shaffer on the difference between freedom and liberty, and how to be free regardless of the state.

"Withdrawing consent" -- STOP cooperating.

[UPDATE on Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz]
He lays out the actual reason Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen was fired, but misfires on who is actually responsible.

Gallegos' candid and public position on medical marijuana is a courageous stand where most of his statewide district attorney colleagues and the Humboldt County law enforcement community feel just about the opposite about medical marijuana. Of course, Gallegos' stand on what he thinks is right despite running into a freight train of ingrained Humboldt County backward politics and the fear of change that infects this county is one of the few bright spots that remain in Humboldt County politics after the November election. Think the firing of the forward-thinking Eureka Police Chief Gar Nielsen by the backward thinking David Tyson.

 "Backward thinking" won the war, but it wasn't backward thinking on David Tyson's fault. The previous city council knew full well the issues confronting Chief Garr Nielsen. Why then didn't the FIRE David Tyson when they had the chance? Did they think, (the operative question) that the "backward thinking" people in Humboldt County and in especially Eureka, that support the Humboldt County law enforcement community wouldn't give them the boot at the first opportunity?

And therein lies the rub, Mr. Schwartz' problem, right along with most everyone else that I know, is that the facts do not support his or their opinions about who actually terminated Garr Nielsen's job and who is actually responsible for issuing bogus search warrants that allows local police agencies to brutalize innocent people without any sort of accountability. In each case it is the peoples' demand to be governed by men rather than law. Free men and women that enforce personal integrity NEVER consent to be governed by such corrupt and lawless people.

--Joe

Shock and Awe Law

Updated Below - Update II

---

I picked up my Saturday, April 18, 2009, Times-Standard Newspaper this morning and was greeted with this brilliant piece of news: Eureka discussing implementation of citywide rental home inspection. "Citizen task force aims to target crime"

Where do they plan on targeting crime? "Rental home inspections" that's where! It seems some person by the name of Lisa Ollivier wants to ratchet up the police powers in Eureka. Donna Tam of the Times-Standard says about Ollivier:

After years of neighborhood watch, putting pressure on overcrowded houses riddled with drug abuse and cockroaches, and being a part of a citizens' task force to target slum housing and crime in their neighborhoods, Ollivier is looking forward to presenting an ordinance to the Eureka City Council on Tuesday that will help to address those problems one rental property at a time.

This is the commentary of some simple self-serving do-gooder's knee-jerk reaction to problems either not being taken care of by the Eureka Police Department and other responsible agencies or deliberately allowed to exist and fester so as to produce this response for a community that was too gutless to personally deal with their own problems.

First, it's extra judicial police roadblocks to check for drunk drivers, random stops and searches on the highways, then its random stops to check and identify people just walking down the street, now it's "overcrowded houses"! What's next? Our guns? One house at a time? Why not? Constitutional legal protection doesn't mean anything when problems are allowed to fester and grow until we need a "Shock and Awe" solution.

Ollivier says:

When Lisa Ollivier was pregnant with her son three years ago, the late-night activities of neighbors in her Clark District home kept her from getting much sleep.

"There were times when I would be on the living room floor because of gunfire going on," she said.

This it pure NONSENSE! This statement, if factual, is an indictment of the police. Which doesn't surprise me one bit. When my wife and I moved into our new home here in Eureka we had one outlaw neighbor that, when they refused to stop constantly harassing us, I was forced to call the Eureka Police Department for help. All we got for our effort was royally shined on. The police officer politely listened to us, could see we were really upset, but did nothing. All the police did was make the problem worse than before. The neighbor figured they had a green light now that the police couldn't even be bothered to speak to them. In the end I took the problem to the Police Chief to help descalate the situation, for all that was worth; a total waste of time. After exhausting considerable resources in life, health, time and money I was forced to deal with the matter personally. It was either that or move. Dealing with me and my solution was not something either the police nor the neighbor wanted, so the problem abated, but not after considerable unnecessary rancor and visceral anger at everyone involved.

Well, I didn't get this posted Saturday, and Sunday I was greeted with "Growing violence: Marijuana gardens are robbery targets throughout Humboldt County" - frontpage, Times-Standard:

Home-invasion robberies at houses with pot gardens occur with disconcerting regularity in Humboldt County, law enforcement officials say. And the potential for violence in any robbery is high. Within the past six months, at least three people have been shot during suspected grow house robberies in Humboldt County.

"I can't think of a home invasion robbery in the last two years in Humboldt County that hasn't had a drug connection to it," said Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen. In every case, "it's almost exclusively marijuana."

What do you expect when a major portion of society believes everyone should have the right to grow and sell marijuana regardless the law or harm and threat to their community? Criminals breed crime and crime breeds violence!

So, what's the solution? Punish (Nuke the innocent women and children.) the people that are the victims of both the criminals and the complicit community?

UPDATE :: Thursday, April 23, 2009
Glass pulls rental home ordinance off the agenda

"Glass said he believes in maximum public input, so he hopes to meet with the task force next week to decide what to do next. He thinks they may set up a public meeting in the future."

That "maximum public input" is the City of Eureka's new public representative, Lisa Ollivier (task force), speaking for the majority? Talk about a classic example of political whoring!

UPDATE II :: Friday, April 24, 2009

His latest bull run on law was published today Friday, April 24, 2009, Times-Standard

Eureka suspends cell tower construction, arranges Verizon hearing

Now Larry Glass has teamed-up with Linda Atkins to push their political "BS" agendas to circumvent the law when not politically expedient. Classic! Atkins says:

Councilwoman Linda Atkins reiterated her opinion that Verizon acted in bad faith when it started construction before obtaining all its permits.

”It's the city's conditional use permit,” she said, adding that the council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it.

According to Atkins, Verizon acted on bad faith, but apparently the permits aren't worth the paper their written on when the city "council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it" after the fact. As bad as that is, this statement tells the whole story about these two worthless representatives.

Atkins and Glass both stated that it is important for the council to represent its citizens and listen to their concerns, even if the matter goes to court.

Since when has the "council" listened to the concerns of the people they are supposed to represent? If they had there never would have been a problem to start with. I wouldn't want a cell tower near my home either, but at some point this slap-stick comedy needs some serious truth-telling. Property owner's deep pockets are finite and it's about time these ideological knot heads come to terms with that reality. Frank Jager, the lone dissenting councilman, who by the way received on a fraction of consideration in this lopsided report, was the only one to show some sense of propriety.

Councilman Frank Jager said that while he, too, wants to ensure that the council protects the residents of Henderson Center, he reminded them that in order to fight a lawsuit for them, the council would be putting the other residents of the city at risk.

”We're also required to protect all the residents in this city,” he said.

The concerned people of Henderson Center and others, like yours truly, were sold out, plain and simple. We can either get used to it or take those responsible to task. Maybe next time they'll think about the people they represent when dealing with the Planning Commission before trying to make all land and property owners pay for their sins.

[Source]

--Joe

Follow Up to a Question About Pot

This article pretty much sums it all up:

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Politicians on Drugs: Explaining the Lack of Seriousness in D.C.

By Austin Cline: The question of decriminalizing some or all illegal narcotics, to a lesser or greater extent, then regulating and taxing the ensuing trade is a serious matter. There are fair arguments on all sides (because there is range of how far we could go with this, there is arguably more than just one "side") of the debate, but it cannot be dismissed as a pointless, irrelevant, or trivial matter. Yet that's precisely what Barack Obama did at a recent town hall meeting where, based on the reaction, he was surrounded by like-minded apologists for the current structures of power and liberty. Way to break outside the beltway and take it to the people, Mr. President.

Let's run quickly through some of the reasons why it's reasonable to regard the current "war on drugs" as causing more trouble than it solves. Both the violence and corruption associated with illegal drugs are more directly connected to the prohibition of drugs than to the use of drugs. The failure of drug laws to eliminate drug use has encouraged politicians to pass ever more draconian anti-drug laws, thus leading both to unnecessary suffering through harsh sentences for non-violent offenses and a decline in respect for the law when people see police and courts consumed with these cases.

Prohibition also undermines basic constitutional liberties by encouraging police to circumvent laws regulating search and seizures. No-knock warrants combined with paying for tips has led to innumerable raids on the homes of innocent people, including quite a few deaths at the hands of some over-zealous police who no longer seem to care very much about "protecting" and "serving" the public. Prohibition is a nightmare for national security, enriching those who already have a grudge against America and fueling resentment in others who are harmed by American efforts to suppress drug production.

Prohibition damages public health because there is so much resistance to the very idea that any illegal drugs might have any benefits — the prohibition mindset allows for only one response to drugs, no matter who might get harmed in the process. Prohibition is just as bad for the budget, consuming huge amounts of government resources, damaging the productivity of people caught up in the prohibition web, and excluding entire sectors as possible sources of revenue.

These reasons may not be enough to convince someone to support ending prohibition, but they are more than enough to cast doubt on prohibition and deserve stronger arguments in response. To put it another way, they are serious and substantive enough to earn something equally serious and substantive in return.

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that Obama was asked about a policy which is still viewed with suspicion and even fear by so many people in America. The case against prohibition may deserve a serious and substantive response, but that's hard to do when so many people's have been taught to react to drugs in a one-dimensional way: just say no. Opponents of prohibition thus have two hurdles: before they can convince people of their arguments, they must also convince people that any arguments should be considered at all.

Support for varying degrees of decriminalization and/or legalization has grown in recent years, but it's still a relative minority position with fierce opposition. That, however, is an argument for Obama to not wholeheartedly endorsing the idea — it's not an argument to dismiss it as a joke. Remember, decriminalization and legalization aren't just about eliminating one isolated restriction on people's liberty. It's not just about allowing people to get high as legally as they get drunk, though that's what so many tend to think about.

The question Barack Obama was asked ties into medical questions, sustainable farming and manufacturing (with hemp), new sources of tax revenues, and more. His dismissive and even flippant response suggests that he's unaware of all this; a serious response, even in the negative, would have indicated that he understands the complexity of the matter and simply arrived at a different conclusion. Something along the lines of "I understand why people argue for this idea and they make some good points, but I just don't agree with their conclusions" would have been a reasonable, respectful response. It would have avoided scaring apologists for the failed war on drugs while signaling to supporters of legalization that they should keep working on their arguments to make a better case. So why didn't he do that?

Sadly, that's a question which a lot of progressives have been asking on a lot of issues. Barack Obama has been touted as a progressive president, but it's hard to find examples which support such a label. Indeed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus — the largest ideological group among Congressional Democrats — is the only major faction which Barack Obama has not met with. Obama has managed to find time to meet with conservative and moderate Democrats, all of whom have been working against progressive policies, but not with the more reliable supporters of progressive policies.

Yes, I know it's necessary to reach out to less reliable supporters in order to make a political agenda work, but that doesn't require ignoring or taking for granted your regular supporters. It's not a progressive value — or even smart politics — to present yourself as a progressive who somehow keeps ignoring other progressives. This, combined with Harry Reid whining that liberal Democrats shouldn't pressure moderate Democrats to stop standing in the way of progressive legislation, leaves the distinct impression that Democratic leaders across the board are consistently looking for ways to ditch progressivism in favor of a more conservative agenda.

--Joe

Eureka SWAT - Business As Usual?

If this doesn't give every law-abiding conscientious homeowner in Humboldt County pause for thought, I don't know what will.

Yeah! We know. It's carte-blanche for the police when it comes to the proliferating criminal element and all the low-life scummy trash-types. But, what happens when you're not a criminal, never were a criminal and support the law, judicious law enforcement and believe in the universal right to self-defense and someone falsely accuses you? Now it's open season on you buddy! You, your family and your poor dog, if you're unlucky enough to have one or two.

---

Maryland Senate Holds Hearings on SWAT Transparency Bill

Last week, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee held hearings on a new bill that would require every police agency in the state with a SWAT team to issue quarterly reports on how often the teams are deployed, why they were deployed, what happened during the warrant service, and what was found. It is a small but vital step toward allowing for a proper assessment of just how often paramilitary-style tactics are being used in Maryland, how often things go wrong, and whether they’re being used as advertised.

Several witnesses at the hearing described yet more terrifying wrong-door raids, in cases never before reported.

Karen Thomas told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee that she heard Howard County police shoot and kill her dog in her Ellicott City living room in September 2007, while she lay upstairs on the floor, surrounded by police who had not identified themselves.

“In my mind, terrorists had just killed my son and they were going to kill me next,” she told committee members.

Thomas said that police were searching for drugs, but none were found…
Choking back tears, Boyd Petit told committee members that during an April 2008 raid on his Highland home, a police tactical team had handcuffed him and his family outside his home, at gunpoint and in front of his neighbors, while other officers searched his house.

“Our collective lives flashed before our eyes,” he said.

Petit claimed the raid on his house was prompted by a former customer, who made false allegations about him to police. He said police were searching for a specific weapon, but it was not found.

Right now, it looks like the bill will get through committee. It’s being pushed by Cheye Calvo, the Berwyn Heights, Maryland mayor who was subjected to a particularly violent but mistaken raid on his home. (Compliments of the Agitator)

--Joe

Security Sickness

Read the Sunday, August 3, Editorial in The Eureka Reporter carefully and see if you can find the flim-flam. The title is: "Creeping Internet regulation." To the casual reader you might conclude that the recent ruling by the FCC against the big telecom company, Comcast, was a subtle infringement or posed a serious infringement on Net Neutrality. You might . . .

Notice: "Ostensibly, Comcast did this to customers who often transferred large files because it was concerned that the files might contain illegally copied music or films." Comcast actually assaulted Net Neutrality causing the ruling, because someone, a rare few big downloaders "might" infringe upon them.

Joe recently read on a local blog, SoHum Parlance, the following advice (legal apparently) about search warrants under "Tooby Raids Imminent. Duck and Cover": "Many people who were caught up in last month's raids were innocent of any crime, but a search is justified under the law simply on the basis that there is reason to believe your home contains evidence of a crime." "Reason to believe, he says. Innocent people are legally persecuted, harmed and in some cases killed on a "belief" that "illegally," what? Yeah! What justifies that kind of wanton, rubber-stamp conduct by those empowered to protect the innocent? The same kind of psychotic paranoia that subordinates common sense and makes everyone complicit, security sickness. The kind of common sense that protects the innocent rather than deal with them as mere casualties of war.

Today, all that's needed is for someone to "believe" that you are involved in a "suspicious activity." Something as simple as taking or trying to take a couple of pictures and you will find yourself infected with a current strain of "security sickness." You can read about real "creeping regulation" here. The kind of "creep" that hits all freedom-loving and law-abiding Americans right where they live.

Don't you just love The Eureka Reporter's great snake oil?

ADDENDUM Monday, August 04, 2008

One of the more obvious symptoms of “Security Sickness” is, “If you believe that what you say in good-faith is true then you are NOT a liar.” Why the news media has no credibility or why you can’t trust the Eureka Reporter to print the facts. Or the Eureka Reporter’s facts speak for themselves when they use a quote from a corrupt Republican Dark Age Crusader (John Boehner, R-Ohio, the House minority leader) to justify their worthless opinions.

“FCC Rules Against Comcast For Blocking Web Access”

Read for yourself where Craig Aaron (Communications Director for Free Press) says, in part: "Well, this ruling that happened on Friday, which is really a landmark, a historic precedent, was the result of an incredible grassroots movement to draw attention to these issues of an open internet. . . ." You can read the rest of the interview here.

ADDENDUM: Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Another symptom of the disease: Mcain suggests military-style invasion modeled on the surge to control inner city crime. You think, when the sickness is full blown, we'll get "Iraq inner city" crime with car bombs, suicide bombers and rampant executions?

--Joe