Because freedom can't protect itself
Not once in all the commentary is there one statement about the fact that the Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws. To make a law that "retroactively" changes the law was correctly recognized to DESTROY the Rule of Law. If the Law does not mean what it says at the time it says because it can be Ex Post Facto changed then there is NO LAW....
That above all makes this law a GRAVE CRIME. The Democrats have shown themselves to be as bad as Bush and the Conservatives, what they are conserving I do not know because it isn't the Constitution, Obama unfit for any office and McCain a coward....
I am glad someone is taking a stand on this as I find it difficult to think that anyone in this country (US Citizen that is) would want to sit back send an email to a friend that might be in a foreign country that the US considers a threat and have their name added to a long list of possible terrorists. As a collector of Police Patches I have had mail from foreign countries opened (these are letters mind you) that if scanned would have shown it was a police patch from that country and then sent on to me in the open state with no security taken to insure the contents were not lost. As a veteran and a Native American I find this invasion un called for when all that had to be done was to scan the envelope and see.
I applaud the ACLU on this fight for all Americans.
Why doesn't the A C L U gather up all of itS people and move to Iran?
I am continually saddened and astonished that Congress passes laws that they know, or should know, are at variance with the U. S. Constitution. The motto of the Congress in place for the past 8 years should be: 'We knew it was unconstitutional, but voted for it anyway.'
Office of the Inspector General
Semi-Annual Report to Congress (October 1, 2007-March 31, 2008)
During this reporting period, the OIG received 163 complaints involving the USMS. The most common allegations made against USMS employees included job performance failure, official misconduct and force, abuse, and rights violations. The OIG opened 10 investigations and referred other allegations to the USMS's Office of Internal Affairs for review.
At the close of the reporting period, the OIG had 22 open cases of alleged misconduct against USMS employees. The following is an example of a case involving the USMS that the OIG's Investigations Division handled during this reporting period:
An investigation by the OIG's San Francisco Area Office led to the arrest and guilty plea of a USMS supervisory deputy marshal on a charge of making a false statement. The investigation determined that the supervisory deputy marshal submitted an application for promotion to the USMS in which he falsely claimed he had a 4-year degree from a university and included false transcripts with the application. When interviewed, the supervisory deputy marshal admitted he purchased the degree and transcripts online from a "diploma mill" for $703. He subsequently retired from the USMS. Sentencing is pending.
I would appreciate it if my documented complaint of false statements made by employee's of the U.S. Marshals Service would merit the same attention & corrective action be taken immediately. Thank you.
I submitted legitimate allegations of illegal electronic surveillance of myself possibly being conducted by members of the U.S. Marshals Service to the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection. I received a document from Yvonne Bonner the former Chief Inspector of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection stating that they would conduct an official investigation but "I would not be entitled to know the outcome due to privacy issues" not reflected by statute of law in violation of federal statute Title 50 > Chapter 36 > Subchapter I > § 1810 Civil liability.
After waiting over a period of thirty days I received no further communication from the U.S. Marshals Service at which time I contacted the office of the Hon. Senator Charles E. Schumer. His New York office submitted a request to the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs U.S. Department of Justice requesting their direct response.
Hon. Senator Charles E. Schumer later received a response from the former Chief of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Congressional Affairs John J. McNulty, III which contained false statements in violation of Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 47 > § 1001 Statements or entries generally & Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 73 > §§§ 1510, 1515, 1519 Obstruction of Justice. At which time he stated that the U.S. Marshals Service had not and would not investigate my allegations contradicting the previous letter from the U.S. Marshals Service internal affairs division. This was and is in violation of federal statute of law as well as U.S. Department of Justice policies & procedures. Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 19 > § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.
Thus making his statements absent of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. A clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law 5 USC 706(2)(A). This was and is in violation of federal law as well as U.S. Department of Justice policies & procedures.
How is it legally possible that the Chief of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Congressional Affairs contradicted the former Chief Inspector of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection in writing three times. Twice to a U.S. Senator who sits on the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime & Drugs which has oversight of the U.S. Marshals Service & once to a U.S. Congressman & no corrective action has been taken whatsoever?
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 > § 706
§ 706. Scope of review
To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
§ 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1361
§ 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
Yvonne Bonner is currently the Acting Marshal for the district of Boston & under investigation by the Office of the Inspector General for possible ethics violations involving a separate incident.
I have requested official federal oversight by the Senate and/or House of all parties concerned including myself. I am willing to testify in any U.S. federal court of law that my allegations are true to the best of my knowledge.
You can review detailed information as well as download the physical USDOJ documentation from daprocess.com & you can review further information at daprocess.com/verifiedml. Thank you.
Correction needed: You have Naomi Wolf listed as a plaintiff, but it is actually Naomi Klein.
I received the following assurance from my Congressman Mike Rogers (R) MI-08 that a warrant to carryout surveillance of US citizens is still required by the FISC. Below is an excerpt of an email I received from Mike Rogers in response to my communication urging him to vote against the FAA in it's current form.
So I can rest easy that my Fourth Amendment protection is still in place, right?
Why am I not resting easy about this?
The above mentioned excerpt is here: "On June 20, 2008 with my support the House passed H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendment Act by a vote of 293 to 129. This legislation amends and extends the 1978 FISA bill until the year 2013. It is a true bipartisan triumph that both protects the civil liberties of Americans, and insures our safety as a nation. Building on the improvements made by the Protect America Act, it provides the tools the intelligence community needs to monitor foreign terrorists in foreign lands. As before, a FISC warrant is still required for surveillance directed at any U.S. citizen, even if they are traveling abroad. It also provides new oversight and accountability measures to ensure our constitutional civil liberties are never infringed upon."
Why not add to your list just some regular everyday people, who's communications maybe compromised along with your celebrity list to show how it effects everbody in this country.
Why not add to your celebrity list some everyday people who may be effected, to show it's not just a minority but a majority!
In the case of OBAMA and CONGRESS giving IMMUNITY to telecommunication companies for wire tapping, I have to join the over 23,000 BLOGGERS and say, “No way! FCC has already given them too much POWER!” Approximately a few years ago, I received a CELL Phone Bill that wasn’t correct. The BILL was supposed to be for $56 plus fees and taxes. Instead, it was $354. Within less than one week, the BILL automatically increased from $354 to almost $800. Each time I called to correct the BILLING discrepancy, I was told, “The BILL is right! Just pay it!” Regardless of what I was told, “I knew it was WRONG.” I had only 3 weeks to correct the discrepancy before the BILL was due. Over a period of two weeks, I made numerous calls to CUSTOMER Care. Everyone at CUSTOMER Care, including Supervisors said, “The BILL was RIGHT!” Eventually, I was directed to the President’s Office. At the ‘Corporate’ level, an investigation prove I was RIGHT; the BILL was WRONG! After I won the case, the CELL phone company decided to inflict additional PAIN, SUFFERING, and MENTAL DISTRESS by starting the process of ‘Expiring’ my account. Approximately six months later, without my knowledge, my account was involuntarily cancelled. The reason: TOO MANY CALLS TO CUSTOMER SERVICE. The CANCELLATION is illegal. The TOTAL amount of CALLS should have not included the times I call to correct a billing discrepancy or any problem. One thing that CUSTOMERS don’t know is that the ‘REAL’ reason for their CANCELLATION is , “TOO MANY NOTATIONS TO THEIR ACCOUNT, NOT TOO MANY CALLS TO CUSTOMER SERVICE.” In other words, they are counting each time you speak to a person, not each time you call. In my case, almost every time I called, “I was TRANSFERRED to more than one person. More than one person means more than one NOTE per call. This is why the total number of CALLS is inaccurate. CUSTOMERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY TO CORRECT A BILLING DISCREPANCY OR ANY PROBLEM WITHOUT THE THREAT OF HAVING THEIR SERVICE DISCONNECTED. On behalf of the THOUSANDS of ‘Expired’ CUSTOMERS I say, “Before CONGRESS gives immunity to telecommunication companies, they should first give Customers IMMUNITY from being EXPIRED for CALLING to CORRECT a BILLING issue or any DISCREPANCY.
Can an account be ‘Expired’ twice by the same Telecommunication company? Approximately, 7 months after I was ‘Expired’ I signed up with another company. I was very happy with the ‘NEW’ company. Unfortunately, my JOY only last a few days. On the third day of service, I received a letter from the ‘OLD’ company. The letter stated that I recently signed up and my service was schedule to be cancelled for BAD Credit due to Unverifiable Address. THE SO-CALLED' WRONG ADDRESS' WAS NOT MY FAULT. In order for the 'OLD' company to legally send the letter, they deliberately transpose my home address (only the STREET) with my P O Box (only the CITY, STATE, and ZIP). This is how they created the WRONG address. One ‘STRANGE’ thing is, “I NEVER SIGNED UP WITH THE ‘OLD’ COMPANY.” How did the 'OLD' company know that I activated service with the ‘NEW’ company? The NEW company, BOOST, is affiliated with the 'OLD' company SPRINT. The PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION told me, “Phone companies are not allowed to share records; it is illegal.” THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GIVE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TOO MUCH POWER. THEY WILL ABUSE IT!
Thank you both! You guys will be sorry to hear that I will not have time to do the weekly updates anymore. I’ll make a blog post about it on Monday. Sorry, but there’s just a lack of spare time in my life right now, and I’d rather get back to the tutorials.
Where do you go for help ? after a full ( F.I.S.A. ) investgateion
2007/2008 and three years of living hell. 2009/2012...Who do you ask ?
For help... ( s.o.s. )
ps; if ( I ) need to protest your front door w/a protestsign for ( HELP )
don't get mad...be civil / a.c.l.u.
Get breaking news on issues you care about
Help fight for our rights. Donate to the ACLU.
Sign up for the ACLU Action newsletter.
Chip in to help protect all of our rights and liberties.
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004
This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about these two components of the ACLU.