Tag Archives: due process

If there were no minimum wage in the United States, how low would wages go?

Revisiting a topic I’ve discussed on this blog before, there was a new article on UK Yahoo, much to my surprise:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/should-we-scrap-the-minimum-wage.html

If there were no minimum wage in the United States, how low would wages go?  Would inflation come to an end?  How far might price deflation go?   Would outsourcing of American jobs stop immediately?  Would the power of labor unions increase or decrease (assuming freedom of contract and freedom to strike were preserved as a matter of constitutional right)?  Would anyone ever bother to immigrate illegally into the United States again? 

According to Wikipedia, “Many countries, such as NorwaySwedenFinlandDenmarkSwitzerlandGermanyAustriaItaly, and Cyprus have no minimum wage laws, but rely on employer groups and trade unions to set minimum earnings through collective bargaining.”  Is it coincidental that these are some of the countries with the highest standards of living in the world?  Higher than the standard in the United States?

The minimum wage was instituted in the United States as a matter of Federal Law in 1938, five years into Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.  Richard M. Nixon tried to impose “wage and price controls” as an antidote to inflation in 1971-72.  Nixon’s program was an unmitigated disaster and has not been repeated, but because of the mythology that the minimum wage guarantees a “living wage”, the Federal Minimum Wage is updated every few years.  It is an absurdity that one of the causes of inflation is automatically adjusted upwards to inflation.

My position is that government regulations such as the minimum wage stoke inflationary fires and provide no real security to anyone.  If elected to the United States Senate, I would propose a repeal of the Federal Minimum Wage and add a statutory clarification that any state-imposed minimum wage would constitute an unconstitutional infringement on the rights and obligations of contract, an infringement on Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech, and a taking of liberty without due process of law.  

Let’s try to bring America in line with the most prosperous nations of Europe—ABOLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE!  MAKE AMERICA COMPETITIVE AGAIN!  Require EXCELLENCE in PRODUCTIVITY before automatic rewards.  

Oh, by the way, adjusted for inflation and currency, the average worker’s wages in Austria, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, at least (countries with which I have some familiarity and have studied recently) have higher EFFECTIVE wages and lower rates of inflation than the United States of America.  Finland supposedly has the finest education system in the world.  America’s public educational system is a nightmare failure and should probably be abolished all together as one of the first and principal failures of governmental compulsory “welfare” laws.

Why is Senate Bill 1867 so bad? In the Exercise of Absolute Power, Justice Forbids Status Crimes and Requires Blindness to all Categories of People (Prejudicial legal Classification of “Protected” or “Disfavored” Groups ALWAYS violates due process and leads down a short, steep, and very slippery slope straight into Totalitarianism)

Someone named “Jonathan” wrote in and asked: “So I’m just curious to know whether you would extend miranda rights to foreign terrorists operating on American soil? Why should an American who joins say Al Qaeda be entitled to a trial or a lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”***(note below)

My answer to these questions [and the pathetic Senate debate excerpted here from the December 7, 2011 Daily Show with Jon Steward (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development)] is that, contrary to current civil rights practice in the United States, governmentally imposed categories and mandatory categorization of people NEVER promotes equality but ALWAYS tends to support and advance both tyranny and real inequality.  Nobody said it better than Rand Paul: “Detaining citizens without a trial is not American.”

By contrast, voluntary categorization, classification, and all assertions of identity originating from the people are among the surest guarantors and symptoms of freedom and genuine equality.  In fact, I would submit that the voluntary and intentional creation and maintenance of identity is one of the Great Traditions of the United States of America which has defined some of the greatest and most distinctive events in the history of this Continent, from the settlement of the Pilgrim Nonconformist Separatists in New England in the 17th Century through the “Great Awakening” of the 18th Century, the Mormon emigration Westward (and many smaller “separate community, separate lifeway” experiments) in the 19th Century (including the Amish), right up until the Cultural upheaval of the 1960s, when “Hippies” and “Flower Children” sought to give a new meaning to Freedom in America.   The decision to maintain cultural separateness has historically been protected by the United States Supreme Court in the greatest of its “substantive due process” decisions (e.g. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) and Wisconsin v. Yoder,  406 U.S. 205, 232—233 (1972)).**  

I would go so far as to maintain that involuntarily classifying people  or sorting them into “favored” and “disfavored” groups as a matter of law without trial always leads to violations of due process.  No movies or other literature ever illustrated this inherent injustice in the prejudicial and discriminatory processes of classification and labeling people one way or another than V-for-Vendetta in 2005 and Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book in 2006.  

I would also say that the only real PURPOSES people EVER have in classifying their fellow man (and woman) into involuntary groups is to deny them due process, and that this is simply intolerable under the American Constitution.

Note that the Bill of Rights contains no categories of persons, but only restrictions on the power of government: absolutely and unqualifiedly stated.  Rather, Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X refer simply to “the people.”  Amendment V refers to “no person” and “any person”, since criminal prosecutions are almost always, by definition, brought on a one-by-one individual basis.  Even Nazi Germany, for example, never indicted “the Jews”, nor, during the 1950s, were there ever prosecutions against “the Communists”.  Due process of  law simply does not allow for categorical indictments.

Finally, Amendment VI refers only to “the accused”, again an individual classification.  (Despite the customary usage of the masculine gender throughout the bill of rights when referring to individuals, no one has ever suggested that the framers intended these rights only to apply to men: it was the grammatical economy of the time not to say “he and she” or “his and hers” or “him and her” as it is sometimes thought more acceptable to do now.)

So these are the major reasons why, in response to Jonathan’s question, I believe that “Miranda rights” (i.e. the full inventory of rights Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights) should be extended to all “foreign terrorists operating on American soil.”  To do otherwise would be to “prejudge” both who is foreign and who is a terrorist, and would  make both words “foreign” and “terrorists” into prejudicial, disfavored categories exactly analogous to “Negro” under Jim Crow in the South, “Jew” in Nazi Germany, and “Bourgeois” or “Capitalist” in Stalinist Russia.

What the 1996 AEDPA, the 2001 PATRIOT Act, and the Senate in passing S.B. 1867 have done, though, is actually MUCH worse than MERELY “discriminating against foreigners and terrorists” and in fact, much worse than “merely discriminating against, Blacks or Jews or even (to give two give two examples of a super-irrationally feared and overused but extremely vague pair of categories in modern law) “Sex Offender” and “Illegal Immigrant.”  No, the Category of “Terrorist” alone is “void for vagueness” as a matter of law.  See Papachrisou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 169-170 (1972), and Kolender v. Lawson (Kolender v Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1982), attached here in adobe.pdf):

. . . “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903, 103 S. Ct. 1855 (1983). 

(On the whole, the text of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville is more amusing for its analysis of how the distinction between “idle rich” and “vagrant” under the City of Jacksonville, Florida’s “Vagrancy” ordinance blurred into meaninglessness….Papachristou v City of Jacksonville 405 US 156 92 SCt 839 02-24-1972).  ”Terrorism” as a status crime under S.B. 1867 or category of criminal conduct is void for all the same reasons as was “vagrancy.”

What the Senate has done in S.B. 1867 is worse than “mere discrimination” against any of those categorical groups because in each case (Black, Jew, Sex Offender, Illegal Immigrant) there is at least a fairly narrow and objectively determinable set of traits or characteristics which define membership in the group.  There may be ambiguity at the edges, people of mixed race and ethnicity, “sex offenders” convicted of “statutory rape” where the girl lied about her age in  an objectively credible way, cases of “illegal immigration” where family hardship brought or kept people together for mutual support in violation of immigration laws, but on the whole, Blacks, Jews, Illegal Immigrants, and Sex Offenders all know who they are, and they can either “lie low” or decide to leave the country if they are able.

What is so totally monstrous about the category of “terrorist” in particular and “foreigner operating on American soil” is that theses terms are simultaneously vague, overbroad and subject to arbitrary and capricious application to the degree that even racial categories and categories based on convictions for violation of laws are not.    And in the context of modern America, merely calling someone a terrorist MAKES them a terrorist, especially (but not only) when it is a member of the government making the accusation.  To allow denial of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to individuals accused of terrorism is simply to allow the government to deny these rights to anyone it wants, whenever it wants, for any reason it wants.  We now have a “Government of the Dictators, by the Dictators, and For the Dictators” (as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address should honestly and probably have been written).   The dictatorial decision about who is a terrorist is left open—WIDE OPEN.   The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas (Greg Abbott and James Carlton Todd) have been calling the author of this blog a “dangerous paper terrorist” since 2005.  (Yes, I admit it, I have occasionally thrown paper airplanes at government buildings in protest against policies with which I disagree, OK?   So I guess that means I’m off to Guantanamo Bay? or the Domestic Equivalent?   In fact, when arrested by Live Oak at the edge of the Suwannee River on the order of Houston Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes in August 2006, they raised the prospect of Guantanamo Bay for me in Jacksonville, only half joking…at most half….or maybe not at all I’m still not sure, but here I am in West L.A./Santa Monica).   It is not trivial at all.  They have been throwing around these terms like “paper terrorist” ever since 9/11, and the purpose is, frankly, to create an atmosphere of terror and prejudice against the people so labelled.  After that experience, I just “went with it”.  But even in 2005, there was another disbarred attorney (Zena D. Crenshaw NJCDLP “National Judicial Conduct & Disability Project) who came in from Indiana to help Francis Wayne Williams-Montenegro with my family law case in 2005.  She tried to show that the Attorney General was trying to prejudice the Court against me (it was difficult to make the Williamson County 395th Judicial District any more prejudiced against me than it was) by calling me “the most dangerous paper terrorist” in Texas, but it didn’t go anywhere.  Zena rightly predicted that they were trying to sweep all Judicial Reform activists into the category of “terrorists.” In fact, Judicial Reform, Anti-Income Tax/IRS Reform, Prison Reform, Anti-Big Oil Activists, we’re ALL terrorists now.  The FBI has guidelines and we “fit” even before S.B. 1867 became law.  I said to Zena in 2004-5 and I say now that to be accused of anything so preposterous is a “red badge of courage” and I wore it proudly (still do in fact), despite the fact that my saying so on videotape resulted in my getting arrested AGAIN in December 2007 in Mexico City and brought to Los Angeles (this time on the order of Judge Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi, in the same Southern District of Texas in which Judge Lynn N. Hughes sits, and which George H. W. Bush [Bush 41st] calls “home”).

The way “Jonathan’s” questions above are written actually illustrated just how bad S.B. 1867 is: After asking whether I would “extend Miranda Rights to foreign terrorists operation on American soil” (I submit that such rights have existed ever since the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the problem is not “extending” such rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but in taking them away), “Jonathan” then asks: “Why should an American who joins say “Al Qaeda” be entitled to a trial or lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”

This question is probably the scariest of all, if serious and not merely rhetorical. My answer is simple: BECAUSE AN AMERICAN WHO JOINS AL QAEDA IS STILL AN AMERICAN, THAT’S WHY.  But Again, to Repeat, and this is SO IMPORTANT: the Bill of Rights do not discriminate between Citizens and Non-Citizens, Americans and Non-Americans, just “people” and “persons” (so the only categorical distinctions made implicitly, if any, would be those between “people” or “persons” and animals [sorry, PETA][or plants I guess---wheat plants have any Constitutional rights before being eaten...even for arbitrary and capricious purposes as being ground into flour and made into extremely unhealthy and fattening cakes or cookies....]) .

But then that does wrap up this little exercise about why S.B. 1867 is such a very bad law: Americans can be characterized as “terrorists” and reduced to ashes by such categorization.    And it could be that “Jonathan” has more confidence in the meaning of these terms than I do.  I happen to believe that “Al Qaeda” was basically created and established, fostered, aided, and abetted, by the Bush-Reagan administration and set loose to create “domestic terrorism” to justify the very repression of civil liberties which have taken place since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989-90 and the consequent evaporation of the Cold War as a reason for suppressing freedom and the Bill of Rights.  So I think “Al Qaeda” is a government made fraud, that 9/11 was a U.S. government-sponsored “false flag” attack, and that Oklahoma City MAY have been a government-sponsored incident of false terrorism.  (Please view this brilliant 5 minute summary, text also copied below at Note*: http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/)

In support of these hypotheses of mine, I can only point to patterns of history: from 1963-1972, from John F. Kennedy through George Corley Wallace,  a series of public assassinations by public shootings of “troublesome” non-conformist politicians took place in a waive of “lone gunmen” with no precedent in American History, and no tradition that survived.  The failed attacks on Ford and Reagan were just that, failures, and were easily traceable either to Squeaky Fromm/ Manson or John Hinkley personal and family psychological problems.

It is hard to believe that the generation that came of age during the decade 1963-1972 simply bred a series of “lone gunmen” who acted without obvious motive (but all happened to oppose, directly or indirectly, the policies and power of Lyndon Baines Johnson, even though John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and George C. Wallace were all at least nominally allies or at least in the same [Democratic] Party at one time or another, though Wallace ran Third-Party [American Independent] in 1968 and Malcolm X, though he hated all Democrats “categorically” as “Dixiecrats” was partially allied with Johnson on the question of Civil Rights).

It is equally hard to believe that another Decade long episode, namely the series of incidents of Domestic “Terrorism” or at least confrontation between Federal and Private parties that the Government sought to characterize somehow as “terroristic” from Ruby Ridge in 1992-9/11/2001, was merely a historical accident and not planned.  ALL the major terrorist acts since 9/11 have occurred in Europe….THAT is the legacy of 2001-2011.  Every decade has a different set of problems, with no overlap at all between the “Assassination” decade and the “Terrorism” Decade (unless you count the early 70s epidemic of hijacking which led to early restrictions on air-travel as partly overlapping with the decade of assassination).   No, it seems that the Government picks its crisis formula based on what it wants to achieve and then “stages” criminal acts and history accordingly.   So, Jonathan, whoever you are, does this answer your question?  Do you really want to live in a country where they can decide, tomorrow, that YOU are a terrorist and lock you up forever?

****I know only a few Jonathans… I hope that “Jonathan” who is the author of these questions is posing them only for rhetorical purposes to test my commitment to moral consistency and philosophical coherence.  Because, if the author of these questions is serious, and if he reflects widespread opinion in America, then…. I’m even more depressed about the passage of Senate Bill 1867 than I was before.  I can only hope this Jonathan is Dr. Jonathan Harris Levy (Brimstone & Co.)(http://www.brimstoneandcompany.com/), formerly attorney for noted Orange County Dentist Orly Taitz and (the one and only) other William Howard Taft Law School graduate I’ve ever encountered, because that would just confirm my suspicion that Orly supports the 93 bad guys who voted for this bill….  If it’s anyone of any higher level of academic achievement in law than the William Howard Taft Law School involved in presenting these questions, well that’s just demoralizing….

**If we desire homogeneity in this Country, we are well on the way to a “shake and bake” society of people no more different than one box of hamburger helper is from another.  I do not personally desire such homogeneity, but I think it is best left to the people to make voluntary associations and define local color and establish meaningful cultural diversity by devolving power downward rather than concentrating it upward.

Note*:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

(Watch FrenchGermanSpanish or Portuguese translations of this video.)

TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcoholsnort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidenceliterally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayedunderfundedset up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimonyextracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7Able DangerPtechSibel EdmondsOBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secretoff the recordnot under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise himhimhim, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilitiesand the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBICIANSADIASECMSMWhite HouseNIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Civil Rights Removal: To Limit Removal to Cases involving Racial Discrimination on the basis of Statutory Schemes to enforce racial inequality is to make a travesty of Civil Rights—either we all have real rights or none of us do!

Lori G. McDonald now tests the waters with the best and most comprehensive Notice of Civil Rights Removal filed to date.  Why are so many eviction cases, when removed on grounds of diversity alone, remanded for the reason that the claims of dollar amounts in a Plaintiff’s case (no matter how illusory or illogical those amounts might be) is absolutely controlling for diversity jurisdiction?  Plaintiffs in limited jurisdiction “unlawful detainer” cases only claim “back rental” (if anything) in dollar amounts, but a huge amount of jurisprudence supports a completely different angle of analysis of “amount in controversy” and such claims as to value are always frivolous, fraudulent, and designed precisely to avoid the rigors of federal court. Lori has now addressed these issues in her Notice, filed November 28, 2011, in Santa Ana, Orange County, California, based on the legal research and ligation support which only the Charles Lincoln Trust for Tierra Limpia  provides to pro se homeowners….. and those who have been wrongfully deprived of home ownership.  California Civil Code §2924 et seq. is an “equal opportunity destroyer,” and there will be no peace until the entire process of non-judicial foreclosure is wiped from the face of the earth and declared unconstitutional, never to be raised from the grave again.  The lawyers, such as Steven D. Silverstein and their allies the corrupt Superior Court Judges such as Cory Cramin, who knowingly enforced that unconstitutional and immoral statute and took pleasure in the infliction of misery on millions must be punished, as must politicians such as Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Edmund G. Brown who smiled and used their positions and influence to uphold the special privileges, grossly inequitable and immorally granted rights and blatantly unconstitutional powers of the Banks while it was all going on.

If elected to the United States Senate, I will filibuster to eradicate the requirement of race-based classifications and even “protected group” analysis from equal protection jurisprudence: All must be free or none can be free, because some animals are NOT really more equal than others…..  

11-28-2011 Lori G McDonald & Mark Privitera Removal of Wells Fargo Case to USDC CDCA re 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E ; 11-28-2011 Civil Cover Sheet for Lori G. McDonald & Mark Privitera Notice of Civil Rights Removal ; 11-28-2011 Lori G McDonald Certificate of Interested Parties for Notice of Removal

Federal Civil Rights Legislation and litigation simply did not exist before the War Between the States of 1861-1865.  Such legislation and litigation were only necessary because the Military dictatorship which arose after the War made certain that the newly emancipated slaves actually had the upper hand (for a few years, anyhow) before the Compromise of 1877 obliterated what little integrity was left in the Union’s claim to the moral highground.  After a couple of decades of dormancy, “Civil Rights” became the most divisive issue in the nation again, starting almost immediately after World War II (for which the war of 1861-65 in America was a very clear and plain rehearsal).   Now the Banks have allied themselves with the United States government in a manner analogous to the alliance between Carpetbaggers and Union Troops in the South (also, coincidentally, with full bank-establishment backing….) and are wreaking havoc all over the country.  Millions are losing their homes and seeing their savings and security wiped out.  Now the whole nation knows what it was like to be a Southern White Farmer in the late 1860s.  And ironically, blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians are all being turned out of their homes without regard to race, creed, or color, but it could not have happened without the Civil Rights Laws’ having been expressly applied by the Courts ONLY to protect the rights of one race against another, and not of all people together. 

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.

Tennessee is a dangerous place to think; the First Amendment ESPECIALLY Protects all Expressions of “Offensive” and “Injurious” thought—because these are the most dangerous to the “Comfort” of those who wield power

Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"
By  | Published 4 days ago
Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to “transmit or display an image” online that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

The Tennessee legislature has been busy updating its laws for the Internet age, and not always for the better. Last week we reported on a bill that updated Tennessee’s theft-of-service laws to include “subscription entertainment services” like Netflix.

The ban on distressing images, which was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam last week, is also an update to existing law. Tennessee law already made it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender “reasonably should know” would “cause emotional distress” to the recipient. If the communciation lacked a “legitimate purpose,” the sender faced jail time.

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the “emotionally distressed” individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you “should have known” that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you’re not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn’t require that the picture be of the “victim,” nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, “pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group,” could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill “pretty clearly unconstitutional.”

Another provision of the legislation governs law enforcement access to the contents of communications on social networking sites. The government can get access to “images or communications” posted to a social networking site by offering “specific and articulable facts,” suggesting that the information sought is “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

This section, too, faces constitutional problems. Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute, tells Ars that “this is a lower standard than the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act requires” for unread communications. More importantly, because Tennessee is in the Sixth Circuit, it is bound by that court’sWarshak decision, which held that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a full search warrant in order to access e-mail communications. “That case dealt with e-mail,” Sanchez said, “but there’s no good reason to think a private message on a social network site is any different.”

Rep. Charles Curtiss, the lead sponsor of the legislation, did not respond to our request for comment.

Further reading

Post A Picture That ‘Causes Emotional Distress’ And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee

from the outlawing-jerks? dept

Over the last few years, we’ve seen a troubling trend in various state laws which attempt to come up with ways to outlaw being a jerk online. Many of these are based on politicians and/or the public taking an emotional reaction to something bad happening after some does something online that angered someone else. Of course, while it would be nice if jerks would go away or jerky behavior would cease, that’s just not realistic. The real issue is: how can it be constitutional to outlaw being a jerk? In many cases it raises serious First Amendment issues, among other things. The latest to jump into this game is the state of Tennessee, which apparently decided that just throwing people in jail for sharing music subscription passwordswasn’t enough: now they want to put people in jail for “causing emotional distress” to others.

The specific law outlaws posting a photo online that causes “emotional distress” to someone and has no “legitimate purpose.” While the law does state that there needs to be “malicious intent,” it also includes a massive loophole, in that it says that you can still be liable if the person “reasonably should know” that the actions would “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress.” Eugene Volokh notes all sorts of problems with this:

  • If you’re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation — not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures — you’re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a “legitimate purpose.”
  • Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”
  • The same is true even if you didn’t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material — say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group — would “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.”
  • And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

Honestly, any time you have a law where the liability is based on how some other person feels, you’ve got a pretty serious problem. You can criminalize actions, but making someone a criminal because someone else feels “emotional distress” seems like a huge stretch.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml

Friday, a new Tennessee law was changed to provide (new material italicized):

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:

(4) Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] without legitimate purpose:

(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or

(ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

(B) As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

So the law now applies not just to one-to-one communication, but to people’s posting images on their own Facebook pages, on their Web sites, and in other places if (1) they are acting “without legitimate purpose,” (2) they cause emotional distress, and (3) they intend to cause emotional distress or know or reasonably should know that their action will cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities. So,

  1. If you’re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation — not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures — you’re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a “legitimate purpose.”
  2. Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”
  3. The same is true even if you didn’t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material — say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group — would “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.”
  4. And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me.

Death Came, as it must to all men, to Georges Kourembanas, my brother-in-law, age 51

I will say it again:

I have been an unworthy hypocrite to judge you; you and I were so much alike; you were always my brother; I shall miss you.

CEL III: Georges Kourembanas was a big man

He was a great body builder!

Georges in competition sometime in the mid-1980s

who loved his women, loved his dogs, loved his liquor and cigars, and was loved by all in turn.  He was strong and seemingly indestructible, but he just died at age 51.  How I resented him!  How I envied him!  How I hated him for his life of leisure and luxury living the last ten years of his life on Greek Islands in the Aegean and Cancun!  How I envied the fact that certain people loved and cared for him who could not love and would never care a fig for me!   How I wished that I were as physically strong as he was!   How I wished I had his life, and so, could any two males of the human species be less alike than me and my brother-in-law Georges, who died one week ago on Friday, January 22, 2010, at about 8-8:30 PM in Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, at his home with his mistress Lena who called him “Daddy”, even though knowing that he was beloved by his wife Lisa?

Last Saturday January 30, 2010, Georges Kourembanas was laid to rest beside his father, Panagiotis Kourembanas, a Greek Orthodox Priest, who also died young (at 54, in 1984) in Detroit, Michigan, though both father and son were born in Athens, Greece.  His family all surrounded and mourned him during this past week, although he had literally been an exile, shunned or ignored by all but his Anglo-American wife Lisa, who collapsed at the graveside, his mother, who after 37 years in the United States speaks less English than most foreign secondary school pupils immediately after flunking their first year exams in English, and his sisters, one of whom is my wife from whom I have been estranged for 8 continuous years now and my son, whom she and the system hid from me until he broke through the barricades and found me.

Not having any memory of the heartaches associated with Georges during 1990-1999, my 17 year old son Charlie was very sad about his uncle Georges, who died at age 51, just about two weeks after his birthday in fact, which was January 9—he was born in 1959, one year, three months and one day older than I am now.  He was healthy, at least considering everything, he was a body-builder (contestant representing Greece in the Mr. Universe pageant in 1983), who later became addicted to steroids and then to crack cocaine, which caused his family (including me) no end of trouble and grief.  But he was a good natured and happy guy. “I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”, said Shakespeares’ Mark Anthony, “the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones, so let it be with Caesar.”  In Georges’ case, it seems almost exactly the opposite (his family cried and forgave him all his sins), except that I plan here to write the good, the bad, the ugly, and try to put it all in the context of the world that I think made him who and what he was, and how he and I, as unlike as any two people could be, in so many ways have travelled along similar and parallel paths…rather lonely, difficult paths in fact….

You see, Georges and I both became, in very distinctive ways, victims of American injustice and oppression and the corruption of the American government in the “land of the free.”  We were both deprived of our rights.  We were both made to seem less that ordinary worthy citizens, and we suffered from these unconstitutional offenses against us, as did our country which inflicted these offenses…

First I should quote what my son Charlie, born August 23, 1992 under windows taped with St. Andrews Crosses at St. Mary’s Hospital “Birth Place” in Palm Beach, Florida, during the early landfall of Hurricane Andrews, wrote about his Uncle—(The Following Paragraphs are Charlie’s epitaph for his uncle):

CEL IV: To me, to my mother, to his own mother, and to his wife and friends, Georges Kourembanas was a Great Man, he lived a life that in some ways was extraordinary, eccentric, perhaps unenviable, but many, including some who never met him, would agree that there was something Great about his heart and soul as well as his body—his physical strength.  His mother was my maternal grandmother, Neonina (aka “Nina”) Kourembanas.

One of the dearest of all God’s Saints to me is Saint George.   I grew up reading my Father’s English stories of St. George and the Dragon under the white and red flag of England, but St. George was also the Patron Saint of my mother’s native Greece with its universally recognized blue and white flag, but also of Aragon, thus triangulating Europe (and my parents’ lives—my mother from Greece, my father of Anglo-American heritage, but they met in Mexico, speaking Spanish).   One of the few things my parents ever agreed on was to celebrate St. George’s Day on April 23, and we used to go to Saint George’s Church on St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans, where there were dragonslayer windows made and set by George Comfort Tiffany (damaged but not destroyed in Hurricane Katrina, 2005).

My Uncle Georges, had a traditional Orthodox Greek icon of Saint George in his room above his bed.  One of my earliest memories with Georges was in the 90s when I went to a Karate Tournament.  I won by tapping my opponents head, Georges remembered that very well and reminded it to me many times; I imagine he was proud as he himself was a boxer who won “golden gloves” in several tournaments (he told me this when I was in Cancun during the summer of 2007).

If I were to describe my uncle Georges in one word it would be that which he told me ran in our blood, Spartan.

Beside mere physical ability strength Georges was one of the kindest men I have ever met, he would often tell me that he loved me with all his heart, and “Charlie I have a big heart.”

Together while spending the summer with Georges in Cancun during July and August of 2007 he decided to train me in body building for he was one of best bodybuilders in the world. During the 80s he was awarded Mr. Michigan three times consequently he went to Greece and became Mr. Greece then in the Mr Universe competition which he won 8th place at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Georges Kourembanas was born in the Kingdom of Greece, son of an Orthodox Priest who married a model, so an unlikely start for a champion body builder. His Mother and Father immigrated to the United States in 1970 foreseeing the downfall of the Dictatorship of Papadoupoulous, and meeting up with George’s maternal Uncle John Samohin and George’s maternal Grandmother in Detroit, bringing both of Georges’ young sister, my mother Elena, with them (my aunt Alex was born in Detroit in 1973).

In the summer of 1974, after Georges had already started working out at the original PowerHouse Gym on Woodward St. in Detroit,  Georges went to Greece to visit with his parents and little sister Elena; there he witnessed the commotion in the streets of Athens during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

By 1980 Georges won “golden gloves” in boxing, having already won 1977 Teen Mr. Highlands 4th Place, and several other teen bodybuilding awards.  After graduating from High School George went to Wayne State University in Detroit. In 1981 Georges won Mr. Michigan, then in 1982 he was awarded Mr. Michigan Most Muscular, and then in 1983 he won 1st place Tall Mr. Michigan.

Since Georges was born in Greece, and could was not eligible to compete for the American title Mr. USA, so he went back to Greece to become Mr. Greece and to represent Greece in the 1984 Mr. Universe tournament in Las Vegas at Caesar’s Palace, where he took eighth place.

In 1984 Georges and his family suffered the loss of his Father, Panagiotis (aka “Peter”) Kourembanas; who was a Greek Orthodox Priest and fell of a heart attack while delivering the Good Friday Sermon in Toronto, Canada (Detroit and Toronto form part of the same Orthodox Diocese, or at least they did back then).

Georges by this time had already come to be known as ‘The Greek’ in many parts of Detroit. He met his future wife Lisa Ann Cook in 1983/4.  She was a beauty queen and a body builder herself—they were quite a striking couple.

Like so many athletes, I’m afraid that my uncle succumbed to the temptation of “enhancement” drugs, i.e., steroids, and unfortunately for him this led to other kinds of “substance abuse” with consequences I think my father will write more about below.  Drugs are apparently sold on credit—but since repossession of collateral to users is rarely an option, collection techniques tend to be significantly more than dunning letters followed by notices of default and acceleration.

In connection with one deal gone bad, Georges was shot on Valentine’s Day, February 14, 1990, in the head through the ear, a bullet that he would carry with him to his death, and while still conscious he protected himself, left the area in his 1987 Camaro, and instead of going to the hospital right away he drove, with blood squirting out of head, to Lisa under the impression that he was going to die. When Lisa saw him she convinced him to go to the hospital where he spent about a week not knowing wheather he would survive or not. By the Grace/Protection of God Georges said he survived.

Georges was shot again in Austin on Christmas morning 1990—he carried some of the bullets he got on those two occasions to his grave, but God had other plans for him than to die a victim of crime.  Instead, Georges died a victim of injustice, American injustice, and that’s where my father is going to take over and write the rest of this.  I can say very little more, except that my whole family have cried every night since he died, and I have lost one of my best friends, one of the few people who remained loyal both to my Father and Mother (along with his wife Lisa) during their long divorce and fighting.

CEL III: I confess that there was a time when I felt my brother in law was a terrible burden, an imposition, a weight sinking my life which I could not bear.  I blamed my wife and mother-in-law for what I called their “Co-Dependence” on Georges during his steroid abuse and crack-cocaine addiction years.  Today as we all remember him, I will try to forget the bitterness that I once felt—the unjust accusations I once made that he was the breaking factor in my marriage to Elena—because it was obviously our fault and no one else’s—oh well, perhaps some fault can be laid at the doors of “the system”, some of its judicial officers and agents, and particularly one false and treacherous Hungarian archaeologist ex-friend of mine, perhaps they were to blame also, but not Georges—Georges was true blue—flawed but stained if by anything then only with his own blood, and his own human frailty—yes, frailty, for all that he was strong enough to tear phonebooks apart.

Most of the substances which constitute modern illegal drugs have been known to man since the dawn of time….at least since the beginning of civilization. Some modern drugs, like “LSD” the favorite of so many young people in the 1960s-70s, and “Crack”–the synthetic form of Cocaine which became popular in the 1980s, and to which Georges eventually became addicted, are artificial, but clearly the need for mind-numbing intoxicants and poisons is one of the “discontents” of civilization to which Sigmund Freud so often referred.

In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a substance called “Soma” was rationed out to all people liberally—without any of the side effects of alcohol or other drugs.  The importance of drugs to the 19th century British Empire is epitomized by the “Opium Wars” which forced drugs on an isolationist China.  The importance of drugs to the 20th century American Empire is punctuated by the events of 1919, during which year the United States acquired the patent for Heroin and Bayer Aspirin from Germany as part of the Treaty of Versailles, at the same time that the United States passed the 18th Amendment imposing the Prohibition so definitive of the 1920s, and the origins of both organized crime and the earliest formation of a Federal Police State in the United States of America.  There are those who say that William Randolph Hearst was responsible for making George Washington’s favorite crop—Cannabis Sativa illegal in the 1930s to protect his own interest in synthetic fiber ropes, but the true beneficiaries of the suppression of marijuana were each and every police department and above all the FBI, DEA, and ATF organs of the Federal government, which grew and maximized their power with every new “commercial” regulation of drugs in violation of the constitutional liberties of the people.

Psychoactive or narcotic drugs have been used throughout history, and alcohol is still used without prescription to this day.  So I have asked myself, since I was a small child, how is it that opium aristocratically inspired so many poets and other historical figures from Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius to Cardinal Richlieu, as well as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Charles Dickens, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Edgar Allen Poe only to become an abomination forbidden by law in modern times….all over the Americas and Europe….

The reason to me is obvious: government cannot thrive except by forbidding and monopolizing that which people crave.  The earliest example of this in the history of the United States is the play of righteous emotions similar to those I confessed, at the start of this post, to feel about my brother-in-law Georges: envy and resentment of what others have.  The War Between the States in the years 1861-1865 was about many things, but one of them was the envy and resentment of the Northern Whites who prided themselves on hard work and self-sacrifice against the more indulgent, hedonistic, and languid slave-owners of the Southern white world.

The 13th Amendment forbade slavery or involuntary servitude, “except as a punishment for crime”—and from the day of Lee’s surrender at Appomattox until the present day, the prison population of the United States of America has grown until it is the largest in the world (relative to the population of the country as a whole) and the absolute number of incarcerated, paroled and otherwise judicially restrained black people now exceeds the number of African-American slaves in 1860 (and the number of white prisoners, parolees, and probationers exceeds the entire population of the American Colonies in 1776).

Three years before the secession of South Carolina on December 20 1860 through the secession of Texas on February 1, 1861, the United States Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Taney, handed down a significant decision in a case called Scott v. Sanford (1857) which decided, among many other things, that one state could not declare to be illegal a form of property which was legal in others, as a matter of comity, due process of law, and many other reasons.  The “due process” reasoning of Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in “the Dred Scott” case is still worth reading, although the memory of the 19th century’s most deadly and devastating war, three constitutional amendments, and many generations of civil rights litigation have otherwised tarnished the memory of the only U.S. Supreme Court case which can ever be said to have had an effect more disastrous than the Judgment of Paris….

So the thirteenth amendment abolished slavery or involuntary servitude EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME, and all of a sudden, the U.S. Criminal Codes started to expand exponentially—because civilized society will apparently not exist without slaves.  Having abolished one species of private property by war and constitutional amendment, the United States Government in the 20th Century started to regulate all manner of commerce and private property, which caused much unhappy spinning in the graves of the Founding Fathers.  Worst of all, the 1920s saw the triumph of the First Prohibition, in which the constitution was amended to forbid the sale of alcohol.  Having proved to be the worst experiment in the moralistic legislative history of the human race, Prohibition of Alcoholic Liquors was repealed in December  of 1933, but it was almost immediately replaced by utterly unconstitutional restraints on drugs such as cannabis sativa, cocaine, opium, and all their derivatives.  The “commerce clause” justification for the federal regulation of drugs is a farce, one of the cruelest hoaxes ever played on a free people, but to explain why no American Patriot would ever suggest that George Washington should have ploughed under his profitable “rope” crop would just be to go too far astray from this story, which is still about my brother-in-law, Georges Kourembanas.

The bottom line, to my mind, is that Government wanted to expand its power, and Government DID expand its power, by controlling what people have always naturally desired and craved: narcotic and psychoactive drugs.  The “War on Drugs”, since the phrase was coined by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller in an attempt to fill the prisons of his state and build more, but especially since this “War” was adopted by Richard Nixon whose advisors told him not merely to make “detente” with Communist China, but also to start emulating its policies of mass incarceration, has operated as one of the largest slavery-cum-corporate welfare programs in the history of the world.  Vast numbers of unemployed youths, skillful middle-aged businessmen, and entrepreneurs of every kind have, since about 1966, been swept into prison through coerced plea agreements engineered by a cabal of licensed attorneys and the judges who love and control them together with the corporate franchises which fund all of them, and between 1-2% of the American population is now locked into slavery from which escape is much less likely, and emancipation much more stringently regulated, than Antebellum slavery ever was in the South.

Computers mean that tracking of “escaped slaves” is much more certain and recapture much more likely than it ever was in the days of the “underground railroad”—and of course, all middle class whites, Northern and Southern, Eastern and Western, rejoice in the burgeoning population of the prisons until they or their relatives end up in the trap—at which time it’s just “too bad, so sad” that the privileged middle class population never learned that “none can be free until all are free.”

White America loves the “war on drugs” and the explosion of prison population which has accompanied it.  African and Hispanic Americans can be disproportionately incarcerated for the most trivial crimes, and the most uppity and enterprising white people are likewise incarcerated or threatened with incarceration whenever they get to “uppity” and/or “big for their britches”—unless of course, they are part of the truly immunized elite inner circle.  Entrepreneurial spirit and individual initiative rot in prisons—but corporate values flourished and corporate subservience is instilled in prison, in case you missed the lessons or ignored them in U.S. Elementary-High School (or for that matter in British schools whether portrayed by Dickens or in Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”).  Every indication is that President Barack Hussein Obama fully intends to crush every relic of American freedom that exists, and enforce a rigid conformity to his plans by ever expanding the powers of government through Homeland Security and more and more prisons, private and/or public. Guantanamo will eventually be closed, of course, and replaced by prisons inside the U.S. where indefinite detention without trial will be permitted and the Writ of Habeas Corpus lost forever.

But this is the unjust world reality which trapped and destroyed Georges Kourembanas during the years 1990-2000 and, more than any other single factor, caused his death in exile, however luxurious, in Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico on January 22, 2010.

You see, Georges, as noted above, was not born in the United States.  He was accepted and respected as an American in Michigan for years, as so many immigrants have been.  But Georges never gave up his Greek passport—he was content with a “Green Card” (as was his sister, my wife, throughout our marriage—although since our separation she has apparently gotten a Blue American Passport and given up her Democratia Hellinika-E.C. Diabaterio which I always thought was so neat….).  Well, at the very least, she’s voting now…..I’m not quite sure about all that….but I digress…

Georges Kourembanas was (unsurprisingly) arrested several times during his years “under the influence.”  In this he differed little from another fellow named George who just happened to be governor of Texas in 1999.  Aside from the natural class-based consequences of having an Orthodox Priest rather than a U.N. Ambassador and CIA Director for a Father, Georges Kourembanas’ life was little less accomplished than George W. Bush’s.  But as George W. Bush was riding on the modern American prison-based slave-ocracy and its attendant envies and corruptions, Georges Kourembanas was arrested and the government of his adopted land sought his deportation.   There is no “exile” for American citizens who misbehave, but there is deportation for legal residents who do the same or less.  Literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS bordering on MILLIONS of Hispanics are imprisoned throughout the United States for nothing much more than job hunting and maybe then getting drunk (and stopped) on a Saturday night.

I have often said that if Mexico were to imprison rowdy Americans in Cancun, Acapulco, and Mazatlan at the same rate that Mexicans are rounded up in the United States, that the United States would invade Mexico and bring about the North American Union immediately, without further delay or debate.  I also think to myself that there is no real contradiction between building a big prison-like unescapable/uncrossable fence along the Mexican border and proposed a North American Union, because the corporate powers of the United States would like nothing better than to convert Mexico into one gigantic prison-labor camp from which workers could be employed or removed as market conditions should necessitate.  If the politicians of Mexico had any pride….things would be different, but they are mostly former employees of American Corporations such as Coca-Cola, so it hardly matters.

“Moral Turpitude” is what makes people like Georges Kourembanas deportable.  ”Moral Turpitude” is a concept as amorphous as “original sin” which Immigration Courts use to send “undesirables” back from whence they came.  Was Georges Kourembanas less desirable than George W. Bush?  In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans around the world at least from Iraq-to Afghanistan, there is really no comparison or competition at all.  Georges Kourembanas as a man who loves his women, loves, his dogs, and loved his liquor, and never hurt anyone.  ”No one died when Clinton lied” was one of my favorite Bush-era bumper-stickers.

Georges family—my in-laws—took good care of him at the same time that they shunned me as my marriage to his sister resolved itself into a dew.  Care packages and love and visits flowed from Austin to Athens during the early 2000s after Georges took “voluntary departure” instead of deportation—he could have contested deportation but he would have stayed in jail for God knows how long while he did, and he was never convicted of anything which the Greek authorities thought worthy of note.  After a year or so in Athens Georges eventually settled in a Lemon grove amid olive and fig trees on a little island in the Aegean.  He lived there with Lena his mistress while his wife Lisa and his mother and sister and even my son visited him de temps en temps.

I am sure he was lonely and bored living there in a fruit orchard, but his family took care of him, so he never had to work, and I did envy him his existence no end.  I lived along during the years 2002-2007, but I talked to Georges’ American wife Lisa—sometimes almost daily, sometimes only once a week, recently (especially since I left Texas in 2007) not quite so often.  But Georges and Lisa talked to me and helped me keep up with news about my son when the truly criminal state domestic relations courts of Williamson County, Texas, took my son away from me.  So I got to know Georges better and talked to him more often by telephone during those years than I ever had when he lived in the United States.  And yes, Georges was a very kind, good, and big-hearted man, and he always assured me that my son loved me and missed me—and he was obviously telling me the truth.

His wife Lisa?  Well, I have often written that Georges and Lisa were like Tristan and Isolde—always separated, always longing for each other.  Lisa was the ideal loyal and patient wife, in every way tolerant of Georges and his needs (including his need for a permanent female companion on the other side of the Atlantic).  In spite of the situational peculiarities, I think that they really did love each other on an epic, Wagnerian level which few can understand.  Lisa supported Georges, assisted occasionally by my wife Elena and her mother Nina, not so much by any of the other Greek relatives on this side of the Atlantic, except possibly for Tia Maria whom I only met a few times at her home in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York City.  Lisa, like Georges, had a huge heart, great compassion and almost boundless love, at the same time that she became physically weak due to breast-implant poisoning caused by Dow Pharmaceauticals.  She was as much a victim of the American Corporate love-hate affair with drugs, in that sense, as Georges himself.  But Lisa was my true and steadfast friend and through her love for Georges I came to care for my brother-in-law more than I ever dreamed I could have.  My wife Elena always resents the fact that Lisa (alone among my in-laws) supported me in my quest for custody of my son, and she sometimes quotes hatefully and sarcastically how I called Lisa my “Rock of Gibraltar”, but I stand by my evaluation.  I know of no one truer and more loyal and steadfast than Lisa Ann Cook, and Georges was the luckiest man alive to have the love and generous acceptance and tolerance and support of such a wonderful woman, who never judged others but always tried to understand why those who inflicted harm on her might have done so.   In this, she was the truest of true Christians.

So Georges was strong, likable if not downright lovable, and yet he was caught up in currents of history which rendered his life difficult, a struggle, almost impossible.  He was “a man without a country”—never quite American enough to give up his Greek passport while he was living here throughout the nearly thirty years from 1970-1999.  Georges Kourembanas was a three-time “Mr. Michigan” (different awards) who represented Greece in the “Mr. Universe” competition in Las Vegas, Nevada.  He was determined to be a morally turpitudinous undesirable by the same government which created first the demand for drugs and then the war against drugs as a means of maximizing governmental power and control over the population at large.

Was America made any safer or more morally upstanding by deporting my brother-in-law?  No, definitely not—America became poorer and probably more dangerous—indeed, almost certainly more dangerous, because every person removed against his will is another person whose destroyed life is a feather-in-the cap of brutal authoritarianism in America.

Several members of my family-in-law feel so very sad and guilty that they did not do more for Georges during his lifetime.  My main suggestion that may have improved his life was that he relocated from Greece to Cancun, and was closer to his family during the last several years of his life as a consequence.  I made this suggestion because almost as completely as the United States as George’s adopted homeland, Mexico era durante muchos anos mi segunda Patria, aun mas que Inglaterra—Mexico was the land of more of my young adulthood life, dreams and ambitions than any other, and I figured that George could benefit from the amazing Caribbean winds and waters of Northern Quintana Roo.   I had intended to spend at least half of time with Georges in Cancun (en mi Mexico lindo y querido), but for several reasons that never happened.  I am happy to say that my son Charlie, whose first trips outside the U.S. were to Yucatan and Quintana Roo Mexico as a baby, toddler, and elementary schoolboy, was able to spend one summer with George in 2007—even though the purpose at that time was to make sure that Charlie spent as little time in contact with me as humanly possible….

One of the reasons, of course, that I was lacking in funds to spend half of my time in Mexico during the first decade of the Third Millenium Anno Domini was the troubles I had during these same years with the same American government which oppressed my brother—yes, in that he was not just my brother in law, but my brother.   I too had to struggle with charges of ridiculously trivial criminality (I never did drugs—at least I have never done them as a mature adult—that wasn’t my problem—I had plenty of others—when I was indicted (coincidentally in December 1999, shortly after Georges took his involuntary departure) my pre-trial release officer finally stopped giving me the degrading urine tests because they were just pointless).

I too had to struggle with questions of moral turpitude and the significance of such charges for my professional life.  I had had such a fine education and opportunities unparalleled in most people’s lives.  I was very lucky.  But in 1997 I had stood up to the system and sued my local police department for not one but 7-9 instances of police brutality, corruption, and civil rights violations.  And at that point, all-of-a-sudden, my previously essentially dull and blameless life became “morally turpitudinous” and I became in the eyes of many critics an “incompetent attorney.”

So if Georges Kourembanas can hear me—if he had a coin for the Ferryman Charon and has thus crossed the River Styx—or if he is standing somewhere in the upper levels of limbo or purgatory, I hope he will hear my apology for my hypocrisy in criticizing him, in thinking myself superior to him, in believing that my education was in any way superior to his physical strength and good heart (even though his physical heart finally gave out on him, much too soon).  I apologize to him that I could introduce him to the Quintana Roo and Yucatan and Mexico and Belize that I know and love, because I think it would have made his last few years so much better than just hanging around the beach and hotel zone of Cancun.  He and I were both victims of some of the very same authoritarian and repressive forces in the United States in Texas which reached their political apogee in the years after 1993-6.  He and I were both victims of the streamlining and mass production of criminal prosecutions in the United States which all have, as Ayn Rand predicted so many years ago, the sole purpose of rendering us all “criminals” just waiting to be arrested here “in the land of the free” or any of the formerly freedom-loving countries of Europe or the Americas.

Georges and I are also victims of some of the same personal and familial situations.  Now in his epitaph I will not speculate here on what any members of his family could have done for him that they did not, because all I know for sure is that they loved him more than me, so very much more, in spite of all his flaws, and since he was blood, I suppose I can forgive them that.   But in the midst of all that I think he was ten times blessed to have Lisa as his wife and lifetime companion and supporter.   The bottom line is that our two lives, so different, as that of my late brother-in-law and my own, were actually parallel in terms of the circumstances of our “exile” from society.  I still envy him for all the love he enjoyed, and up to a point, I even envy him his early death in Mexico.  Sometimes I wish that I had died, when I had the chance, ten years ago in Egypt.  But I apparently had a purpose to live, and for that reason I do continue to live, and breath, and fight, and remember the pointless injuries done to Georges, my brother-in-law, my brother-in-suffering, and my brother-in-the sometimes loneliness of exile.

Dr. Orly Taitz’ summary on the Curious Case of Lazzara v. Cook—and the death of due process

“Orly Taitz” <dr_taitz@yahoo.com>

As you know, I am an attorney for Major Cook, US army major, whose orders to go to Afghanistan were revoked when he demanded to verify legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama for the position of Commander in Chief. Military has retaliated against major Cook by   applying an enormous pressure on his employer Simtech, inc, a private defense contractor, to have him fired from his $120,000 job. We have responded by filing a legal action against Simtech, Robert Gates-secretary of defense and Obama, seeking reinstatement and damages.    Major Cook’s Rule 59(e) Motion 08-06-09

Originally the case was filed in GA, since Major Cook was supposed to be  deployed from GA, however US District Judge in GA, Clay Land, responded by stating that he no longer had jurisdiction and recommended we refile in FL, where the plaintiff and the defendant Simtech reside.

US District Judge Richard A Lazarra from the Middle District of FL, Tampa division, refused to hear the case. We have filed a Rule 59 motion for re- hearing and a motion to recuse Judge Lazarra, as one showing bias. We attached a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate to show urgency of the matter.

Something totally unbelievable happened. Lazarra denied both motions immediately and put his actual orders, his reasoning under seal. He refuses to show to the plaintiff Major Cook and to me, as his attorney, his actual orders- those are sealed, secret. This is a total travesty of justice and a total and complete insanity, this is a behavior that can happen only in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. How can I appeal his decision if he refuses to show me the orders, his reasoning. If this is allowed to continue, next they can take your houses in eminent domain and give you cents on a dollar and provide no answer, no reasoning; they can send you and your loved ones to FEMA camps behind the barbed wire and provide you no answer, no reasoning. Every decent American has to go to the White house, each and every Federal building, offices of congressmen and senators, state representatives and state senators and DEMAND IMMEDIATE JUDICIAL HEARINGS IN US AND STATE HOUSES OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATES OF THE ISSUE OF OBAMA’S ILLEGITIMACY FOR PRESIDENCY AND IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS FOR ALL OF OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS, DEMAND THE COURTS TO HEAR THE CASES OF OBAMA’S ILLEGITIMACY FOR PRESIDENCY, DEMAND REMOVAL FROM THE BENCH OF ALL OF THE GUTLESS AND CORRUPT JUDGES WHO REFUSE TO HEAR THIS MATTER, DEMAND REMOVAL OF ALL OF THE US ATTORNEYS,ATTORNEY GENERALSDISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND ALL THE OTHER  LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE OBAMA’S ILLEGITIMACY FOR PRESIDENCY.

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691

Are we too afraid to be free? of a world without prisons?

To Vladmir Ilyich Ulyanov, aka V.I. Lenin, is attributed the old Soviet boast, “The nature of Capitalism is such that the last Capitalist will sell the rope to the Communist with which to hang the last Capitalist.”  It could be true that Capitalism may be inherently self-destructive, but Democracy is even more so.  

I am increasingly convinced that the American people WANT to live in Slavery; they WANT to live in a secure and well-regulated Corporate World Prison Planet; they fear freedom and the self-responsibility that comes with it; they loathe the idea that their chains could or should be shaken off: like the frog in hot water, they may in fact become incrementally more comfortable with ever slightly tighter chains, in fact, until their circulation stops entire—

“We have lingered in the chambers of the sea/

By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown/

Till human voices wake us, and we drown.”

Or in other words, “In my end is my beginning.”  The way my grandfather always explained it was, “So long as I am the dictator, I favor pure democracy.”

          Young people who use drugs apparently, for the most part, do not really favor the legalization of drugs or think it is wrong that people who use or sell drugs are put in jail.  They, like prisoners in jails everywhere, fear pederasts and pedophiles will go free, or that murderers and rapists will rule the streets, if there is any meaningful relaxation in the criminal laws which would restore due process of law and civil rights.  And I’m not just talking about young people I meet in the bleak suburbs of Florida and Texas and other bleak places, I’m talking about many of the young people walking around the streets of Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the American Revolution effectively began, where the Sons of Liberty toasted from bowls made by Paul Revere, and George Washington took command of the Continental Army.

          I for my part dream of a world without prisons, or at least a world with no long-term incarceration for anything, ever.  Murder?  Well, it’s rare, for one thing, and for another, Non-civilized tribesmen have no jails, yet murder is rare because vengeance will follow murder, and feuds will decimate the population as a result.  Anthropologists who have studied the feuding Indians of Amazonia and adjacent portions of South America (such as the “Fierce People: the Yanomamo of the Orinoco River in Venezuela) or the until very recently continually warring and sometimes cannibalistic tribes of New Guinea have not seemed to fear for their lives (although it is possible that one Michael Clark Rockefeller who vanished sometime in November 1961 SHOULD have….). 

The simple fact is that throughout history, murder has not always been punished by imprisonment or death and yet murder may be more common now in the United States of America than it ever was before, anywhere.  The United States Supreme Court recently declined to extend the death penalty back to crimes involving something other than homicide, but for a long time in the Anglo-American world, people were hanged for almost anything and everything—horse-stealing, pick-pocketing, etc.

But the young people of America seem convinced that, “if you do the crime you should do the time” and so they will probably continue voting for the politicians who build the most prisons and increase mandatory minimum sentences and probation violations until more people will be in jail or under supervision than outside of it.

I envision a world in which we return to the “injury-only” view of crime.  I can break your taboos all I want to, would be my argument, so long as I don’t hurt you, and if I do hurt you, then I should owe you compensa-tion, and if I will not or cannot compensate you adequately, then you are entitled to vengeance—but that vengeance is yours alone, and if you don’t care, why should anyone else?  That is my ideal world.  So I suppose that, “if I were sitting on the Court, every crime would sound in tort.”

Civil litigation supplemented by personal vendettas is a poor enforcement tool, but is it any worse or less efficient or less accurate than criminal justice?

The same young people I mentioned talking to above also seem to believe that most people in jail deserve to be there.  How ANYONE can think that (in light of recent history and plain reality) is just a mystery to me.  Most people who are in jail in the United States are in jail for drug-related crimes, and all or nearly all drug-related laws in the United States are plainly unconstitutional, and imprisonment for drugs is only socially destructive, NEVER socially constructive.  I would especially say this is true all Federal anti-drug laws, which carry the stiffest sentences, and are backed up by not one single line in the constitution, and by analogy with the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of liquor—if there’s nothing in the constitution about abolishing or prohibiting a species of property, such as alcohol, or drugs, the constitution prohibits the abolition or prohibition of that species of property by way of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment).