Back to doubleUOglobe
From: Brian Redman (bigxc@prairienet.org)
Date: Wed Feb 15 1995 - 19:56:03 PST
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3 Num. 99
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 666 <== NOTE THE NUMBER!
^^^
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
What is H.R. 666, you ask? Here is what Mr. Diaz-Balart says:
H.R. 666 would limit the effect of the exclusionary rule, and
give Federal judges more latitude to admit evidence seized
from those accused of crimes, so long as the search and
seizure in question took place under circumstances providing
the law enforcement officer conducting the search with an
objectively reasonable belief that his actions were in fact
lawful and constitutional. Moreover, H.R. 666 establishes a
shift in the burden of proof. If a search is conducted within
the scope of a warrant, the defendant will have the burden of
providing that the law enforcement officer could not have
reasonably believed that he was acting in conformity with the
fourth amendment.
H.R. 666 builds upon Leon by codifying its holding. A Federal
judge may still suppress evidence if it was seized in knowing
or negligent violation of the Constitution.
Evidence gathered in violation of any statute, administrative
rule or regulation, or rule of procedure would be admissible
unless a statute specifically authorizes exclusion of
evidence. But, the good faith exception would apply and may
render such evidence usable. {1}.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, Member from Florida, goes on to add, "Mr.
Speaker, I strongly support the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of
1995 and urge adoption of this open rule for its consideration."
{2}.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, Member from Florida: add him to your list of bad
guys.
What's that you say? But this is hard to understand, just like
the Andreuccetti Affair! I also am not 100 percent clear on this,
so far. Here's what another Member, Mr. Beilenson, says:
House Resolution 61, the provisions of which the gentleman
from Florida has well explained, is an open rule. I support
it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I am, however, as are others, concerned about the wisdom of
the provisions of H.R. 666, the bill for which this rule has
been granted. As my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee
have written, H.R. 666 "commits affirmative harm to the
Constitution."
It breaks our Constitution's promise, as expressed in the
fourth amendment, and which has been maintained for over 200
years, that all Americans have the right to be protected from
arbitrary and unfounded governmental invasions of their
homes.
The protections of the fourth amendment have been enforced
through the exclusionary rule, which prohibits prosecutors
from using evidence in criminal cases that has been obtained
in violation of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
We should not only question the provisions of H.R. 666 which
allow the use of evidence obtained without a warrant as going
beyond permissible police search and seizure powers, but we
must also question whether Congress has the power to change
the exclusionary rule by simple legislation rather than by a
constitutional amendment. Along with many of my colleagues,
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the constitutionality of
H.R. 666 will be challenged and, I suspect, successfully.
{3}.
Mr. Beilenson: add him to your list of good guys.
The gist of this exclusionary rule business seems to be that, for
example, if you are stopped under the pretext of illegal lane
change, then they find marijuana in your vehicle, then the
original lane change violation gets thrown out, this new "666"
legislation will mean you can still be found guilty on the
marijuana possession. In practice, this will mean that a police
officer can pull you over *for* *anything*, search your vehicle
(he now has "probable cause" based on *whatever* he in "good
faith" decides is a probable cause), and if he finds contraband,
for example, -- *this* *has* *been* *a* *legal* *search*. Even if
the original probable cause that precipitated the search turns
out to be invalid.
What's that you say? You say that you are law-abiding and have
nothing to fear? *Wrong*. You have to fear detainment, search of
your property (and guess what? they don't clean up after
themselves after they have torn apart your house), neighbors
viewing you askance due to the police raid on your property at 4
a.m., nervous police who may shoot you if you make the wrong
move, etc., etc.
And if you are political, man can they go after you now.
Going back to the *Congressional Record*, Mr. Torricelli notes,
The right of persons to be secure in houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not
be violated, the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Today we are told it is an inconvenience, it is in the way of
the police... {4}
Breaking in... Remember what Officer Jack McLamb (ret.) of the
Phoenix Police said?
...there's been much research, *much* research, and much
documentation to the fact -- and I say *fact*, fellow police
officers (We've got some female police officers here too.
Thank you for coming.), -- but I'm telling you, I want you to
hear this, I'm talking about *fact* that we can prove, we've
got the evidence -- an evidentiary foundation that would
stack as high as *I* am, the evidence, I've seen it -- that
the U.S. government, certain factions of the U.S. government,
have been involved in importing the majority of drugs in the
United States since the '60s. Since 1960.... {5}.
So we've got the U.S. government importing the drugs, making the
drugs illegal, causing crime, then saying "Hey! We need to throw
out the 4th amendment because crime is so bad!"
As McLamb explains,
How do you create anarchy in the streets, now? Well, you've
got to do what the dialectic, the Hegelian dialect, said.
And the Hegelian dialect was something that was conceived to
cause you to do things you wouldn't do unless there was
something serious happening in your community.
Here's the dialectic: The Hegelian principle is,
revolutionaries in government have created economic chaos;
shortages of food, fuel; confiscatory taxation; a crisis in
education; and the threat of war, crime, and other divisions,
to condition Americans for the New World Order. The technique
is as old as politics itself. It is the Hegelic principle to
bring about change in a three step process: the thesis, the
antithesis, and the synthesis.
The first step, the thesis, is to create a problem. Crime.
Let's use that as an example. Drugs. Illegal aliens coming
in. Uh, the economy collapses as the illegal aliens come in.
The economy gets worse. Whatever the problem is, you create
it on purpose, O.K.? That is the thesis.
The antithesis is, to generate opposition to the problem. [CN
-- The reaction to the problem.] Fear. Panic. Hysteria.
And then the synthesis is, to offer the solution to the
problem created in step one! {6}.
So the "solution" to the problem *they* *themselves* *have*
*created* is to throw out the 4th amendment! And namby-pamby
liberals and weekend leftists will staunchly block this
awareness! They will lean back, smile knowingly, and tell you
that you need to do an "institutional analysis"! The 4th
amendment has become "inconvenient", drug dealers have merged
with the government, and "666", literally, has arrived. Yet not
to worry -- just leave it to the anemic and oh-so-fashionable
"intellectuals". Straighten out your turtlenecks, boys, and tell
us again: there are no conspiracies.
Amazingly in all this, Pat "turn in your guns" Schroeder appears
as a "good guy":
Right now Americans are basically protected from illegal
searches and seizures by the fact that, yes, of course, today
the FBI or the BATF or the local police could come and go
through your house, your car, whatever, without a warrant.
But if they find anything, they could not use it against you.
Therefore, that is a real inhibitor. Why would you, as a FBI
agent or a police officer, go running through, stopping
people illegally or searching homes illegally if you could
not use it to prosecute? The idea being now, if you want to
prosecute someone and you have cause, you go get a warrant
and then you go get it. If you take away that, which is what
this bill does -- this bill says if they come through your
house, if they come through your car, if they do not have a
warrant and they find anything, they could still use it --
why would anybody go get a warrant?
So what we are really doing as we adopt this bill is just
totally doing away with the requirement to have a search
warrant, because there is not penalty paid, no penalty at all
paid if they illegally search. {7}.
And you thought this new Congress was supposed to be
conservative! Well, like Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise,
surprise, surprise." With a Congress like this, no wonder people
get the wrong idea about conservatives. "It is a great irony that
a new conservatism, believing that government robs people of
their freedom, believing in the right and the sanctity of private
property, would now cause a new exclusion," notes Mr. Torricelli.
{8}. But isn't it just Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Isn't it just
the same bunch of assholes wearing new masks? Could be. *The
Spotlight* notes that "the Democrat-controlled Houses of the
101st and 102nd Congresses passed bills aimed at doing the same
thing -- possibly opening citizens to unconstitutional
warrantless searches." {9}.
You may, especially if you are a new reader of Conspiracy Nation,
be wondering, "Why didn't I see this H.R. 666 in the newspaper?
Why wasn't that nice, smiling Tom Brokaw telling me about this?"
Why you silly person! Don't you know that the O.J. Simpson trial
is so important to your quality of life and to that of your
offspring that the loss of 4th amendment protections must take a
back seat!?
But these *politicos* aren't all slimy scuz. Here are some more
quotes from a couple of Members who upheld their oath to defend
the Constitution.
MR. STUPAK:
Mr. Chairman, I come down here today. I had no intention of
coming down here today until I started listening to the
debate, and the more I listened to it, the more concerned I
have become and the more convinced I am that we need the
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers].
There are very few principles in our Constitution or in the
amendments in our Bill of Rights that are more sacred than
protecting people and their homes from unreasonable search
and seizures.
As I was in my office discussing matters with some
constituents, the gentleman from North Carolina, who had a
very long and distinguished career in law enforcement, came
up and spoke in favor of H.R. 666, but what the gentleman
said are words to this effect, that the fourth amendment
applies only to law-abiding citizens, as he was 2 months ago.
I say to my colleague, "The fourth amendment applies to
everyone in this country, whether you're a law-abiding
citizen, whether you are driving down the road and being
stopped by the police, or whether you are walking home at
night and being stopped by the police. We are all citizens,
and we all have the protection of the fourth amendment
against unreasonable search and seizures."
Having been a police officer for 12 years, 12 years of having
worked the road while I was a police officer, I also went
back and got my law degree and was assigned to special
investigations. I also taught constitutional law, search and
seizure and criminal law at the Michigan State police
academies, and I continued to work the road and to do special
investigations.
No matter who you are, the fourth amendment applies to you.
We do not know when the resources of the State or local or
Federal Government will turn their resources on you, and you
then become a suspect. You do not suddenly lose your fourth
amendment rights. You cannot lose these rights. {10}.
And Congressman Rush, of Chicago:
MR. RUSH:
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
exclusionary rule, this move to enact H.R. 666. Mr. Chairman,
as I sat in my office and listened to the debate, I must tell
Members of this body that I became more terrified about this
piece of legislation than I have been about any legislation
that I have been asked to consider as a Member of this body
since I was elected to this office representing the First
Congressional District of Illinois.
A little over 25 years ago, Mr. Chairman, there was an
illegal search and seizure conducted by the Chicago Police
Department within the city of Chicago.
As a result of that illegal search and seizure, admittedly
illegal search and seizure by the Chicago Police Department,
two individuals were killed [Fred Hampton and Mark Clark],
seven individuals were wounded. They also, the survivors of
that particular raid in the city of Chicago, had the right to
sue. They did sue. The county of Cook settled out of court,
but it did not bring life back to the two individuals who
were killed. That was December 4, 1969.
December 5, 1969, Mr. Chairman, my apartment was also raided
illegally, supposedly in search of guns. They did not come
with a warrant. They came with weapons pulled, weapons
blazing. They shot my door down.
Fortunately I was not at the apartment. My family was not at
the apartment at that time. They entered my apartment, did
not find any weapons, but yet and still, they justified it,
Mr. Chairman, Members of this body, by saying that they, in
fact, did find contraband in my apartment; they did find a
bag of what they identified at the time [as] a bag of
marijuana in my apartment.
Mr. Chairman, upon further research and upon actions by my
attorneys at the time, my attorneys took them to court, and
in court they indicated that that bag of marijuana, where
they had shot my door down, guns blazing, threatening; had I
been there, I would have been killed also, and my family
would have been killed, wiped out totally, they found that
that bag they called marijuana was nothing more than bird
seed.
[...]
Mr. Chairman, I must say to you that although at the time, 25
or more years ago, a little over 25 years ago, back in the
city of Chicago we felt as though we had no friends. We felt
as though the power of this Nation was coming down on our
backs as young men who felt, young men and women, who felt
that we wanted to challenge the status quo.
I must say that it was Members of this body led by the
distinguished gentlemen from Michigan who did come into
Chicago, the Congressional Black Caucus, and put the skids,
put the skids on the type of police atrocities and police
violations of the law and police murder that was occuring in
the city of Chicago, put the skids on that. They came in, and
they conducted a hearing, and because they did focus national
attention on what was happening in Chicago, police forces
there backed up and subsequently were found, they admitted,
that they had no legal grounds to murder two individuals, and
so they had no legal grounds to come into my apartment to
seize and to search and seize in my apartment and to charge
me with a felony of which it was baseless. It was groundless.
It was only an excuse, only an excuse, Mr. Chairman, to take
my life away.
I must tell you that today that is the issue that is at stake
for many, many Americans, whether or not we are going to have
police forces throughout this Nation, any police force, given
the arbitrary power for political reasons to invade someone's
privacy, to invade their homes under the guise of arbitrary
decisions that they want to make. {11}.
-------------------------<< Notes >>-----------------------------
{1} *Congressional Record*, H1315, Feb. 7, 1995
{2} Ibid.
{3} Ibid.
{4} *Congressional Record*, H1320, Feb. 7, 1995
{5} Conspiracy Nation, Vol. 2, Num. 63
{6} Conspiracy Nation, Vol. 1, Num. 82.
{7} *Congressional Record*, H1322, Feb. 7, 1995
{8} *Congressional Record*, H1320, Feb. 7, 1995
{9} *The Spotlight*, Feb. 20, 1995, Vol. XXI, Num. 8, p. 1.
{10} *Congressional Record*, H1324-H1325, Feb. 7, 1995
{11} *Congressional Record*, H1330-H1331, Feb. 7, 1995
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
[Copies of The Congressional Record are normally available for
viewing at your local library.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name"
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org but with
absolutely nothing in the subject line of the message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
Brian Francis Redman bigxc@prairienet.org "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"
--------------------------------------------------------------