who's your nanny?

"Hot Coffee" Costs Take-Two $20 Million

Take-Two Interactive Software reached a $20 million settlement today with investors who sued the company after revelation of hidden sex scenes (the infamous Hot Coffee mod) in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas caused the company's stock to tank.

This article reports that "Parents were not pleased that the scene let the hero of the game accept an invitation for hot coffee from a bikini clad woman and then engage in sex in her apartment. It led to a product recall and the tanking of the company’s stock price."

Does this mean that the parents who purchased this game for their kids were initially pleased with the premise of GTA in which the main character fights in gang wars, carjacks innocent civilians, breaks into houses to get money, propositions prostitutes, kills prostitutes, gets high and goes on murderous rampages?

Hat Tip to Vijay for sending the article my way.

Medical Doctors Don't Need to Be Sociologists, Too

Paulo Serodio, a naturalized U.S. citizen born and raised in Mozambique, is suing a New Jersey medical school after he was kicked out for identifying himself as a "white African-American" during a cultural exercise in a clinical skills course.

Ahh, tolerance in the land of PC, to quote Lew Rockwell, from whom I learned of this story.

This reminds me of college back in the early '90s when political correctness had already hit full stride and all sorts of Americans were being slapped with hyphenated labels. To the best of my knowledge the term "African-American" was in its infancy at this point, but everyone knew it was one that was reserved precisely for those formerly known as "blacks."

Listen, I admit the whole "white/black" thing hardly has a sophisticated ring to it when "desert sand/raw umber" would be much more accurate, but I nevertheless recall getting a kick out of asking my professors what we'd consider white South African boxer Francois Botha if he ever decided to obtain American citizenship. Thankfully I was never booted from class like Mr. Serodio.

But that brings me to a more pertinent question. Are people really not bothered by the fact that prospective doctors or engineers or scientists are being forced to sit through garbage PC courses in the first place? I mean, honestly, I really couldn't care less if my surgeon is culturally literate as long as he knows how to remove an appendix without sending me home with a staph infection.

Because the American education establishment first and foremost exists to indoctrinate its students to worship the state, even those who pursue advanced degrees apparently aren't immune to the same worthless liberal arts-type coursework foisted upon your everyday English or math major. Think about it. What's the point in enduring hours and hours of meaningless psychobabble and touchy-feely sociology classes in addition to your primary realm of study if not to brainwash the masses? You can get a law degree in two years even if you majored in art history as an undergrad; why not just do, say, three years of law school right out of high school and go to work?

Why not? Because all schooling is socialized in the U.S. We all know the vast majority of K-12 schools are run by the government, but even private colleges and universities need to be accredited by the state. Granted, some schools specializing in unique instruction may offer things like three-year bachelor's degrees, but we've been conditioned to accept the four-year degree as standard. Seriously, isn't it ironic that we reserve most of our praise for kids who go off to college and party for four years (or more) and then come home to a saturated job market and wait tables, even though the guys who spent a couple years in a trade school are usually the ones making better money and, better yet, aren't shackled with tens of thousands in education debt?

If academic institutions were allowed to compete in a free market, there would be a much wider array of options for students than exists presently. No doubt some schools would still offer an assortment of liberal arts studies for the lazy or undecided, but there would also be no-B.S. schools that dealt merely with imparting skills relevant to specific fields of study. And hey, perhaps the market would even determine that some professions would require the exact same amount of schooling as they do today under our present system, but the point is we'll never know until schools are freed from silly government mandates.

After all, there's no need to waste two years reading the classics if all you really want to do is operate on dogs and cats.

Judge Orders Parents to Provide Chemo for Son

Keeping in tradition of Nanny knows best, a Minnesota judge has ruled that parents of a 13-year-old cancer patient must undergo testing to determine if their son would benefit from restarting chemotherapy treatments.

In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.

Because chemotheraphy apparently is a guaranteed cure for cancer. Because it's apparently painless. Because there apparently are no ill side effects. Because it apparently doesn't destroy every last healthy cell in the human body on the off-chance it will eradicate cancer cells.

Three PIGS Charged in Partamian Death, DA Vows to Expand Police State

In the wake of the tragic, accidental death of Arman Partamian following a night of partying during a pledging event at SUNY Geneseo, three members of the PIGS fraternity are becoming familiar with the unofficial motto of the American "justice" system: "If you can't prove someone guilty of an actual crime, invent one!"

According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Devin McClain, 21, Alex Stucki, 20, and Daniel Wech, 21, have been charged in the death of Partamian on March 1.

McClain, Stucki and Wech are each facing the following charges: criminally negligent homicide, a felony; three counts of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, one count of second-degree criminal nuisance, one count of first-degree hazing, all misdemeanors; and two counts of second-degree hazing, a violation.

All of these young men have pleaded not guilty to these charges, and rightly so. Although I don't have all the particulars surrounding the events that occurred the night Partamian died, I'm fairly confident that if Livingston County District Attorney Thomas Moran couldn't come up with any charges alleging that McClain, Stucki, and Wech intended to cause the death of their friend, they're probably innocent of any actual crimes. Even the most serious of these charges -- criminally negligent homicide -- implies the lack of intent to do harm.

Of course, that little detail doesn't matter when it comes to the state. Politicians, police officers, prosecutors, and judges all work in conjunction to craft and enforce all sorts of laws here in these United Police States of America that, ironically, intend to criminalize nonviolent behavior, which will ultimately turn us into a nation of lawbreakers.

Hence, the age-old common law standard of mens rea -- the concept that there is no crime without a "guilty mind," or no crime without intent -- has effectively been cast to the dustbin of history. Whereas the mens rea of robbery is the intent to deprive someone of his personal property, the mens rea of murder is the intent to deprive someone of his life. Note, however, that according to New York law a person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when "with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person."

Clearly it would have been helpful if some teacher along the way had told the geniuses who drafted New York's penal codes that, as a general rule of thumb, you don't use the term you're defining in the definition. While this type of arbitrary language works to the state's benefit because it ensures we really don't know what's against the law and what's not, the entire concept of "criminal negligence" is an oxymoron in the first place if we apply the moral standard of mens rea: Criminality requires intent, which is absent in the event of negligent behavior; thus, a death that results from negligence should not be considered a crime.

To be sure, this is not to say that negligence should not be punished. Certainly one could bear a civil responsibility, and therefore be required to pay a civil penalty, if his negligence results in the injury or death of an innocent person. However, criminalizing any number of acts that can be interpreted as "causing the death of another person" is a highly subjective practice that invites widespread abuse. After all, should we imprison high school girls if their ex-boyfriends decide to commit suicide after an unexpected breakup?

The remainder of the charges leveled against McClain, Stucki and Wech range from absurd to downright ignorant.

First, criminal nuisance is a catch-all charge that can be applied whenever police want to round up anyone who "knowingly" creates conditions that endanger others or contribute to unlawful activity. In other words, you may want to think twice before giving your buddies a lift to the library; certainly you know that operating a motor vehicle is a risky endeavor. Of course, this charge obviously has been applied to the Geneseo Three to hold them criminally liable for providing alcohol to a minor because Arman Partamian was only 19 years old. According to the standard of mens rea, however, this cannot morally be considered criminal behavior because Partamian willingly ingested the alcohol. Moreover, drinking laws are immoral on their face -- any adult has the natural right to consume alcohol if he chooses.

As for the ridiculous charge of first-degree unlawfully dealing with a child, well, see my previous comment. Arman was an adult. Just because New York law considers anyone under 21 a "child" when it comes to the purchase or consumption of alcohol, it doesn't prove that the Geneseo Three are criminals; it merely proves the state's laws are unjust. And hazing laws are as ridiculous as "hate crime" legislation. Even if someone is murdered, the crime is murder -- it hardly matters why the crime occurred. These charges are ancillary and excessive, and smack of little more than a brutish attempt by the DA to publicly smear McClain, Stucki, and Wech as mere miscreants who abused a defenseless child, instead of as human beings who may be guilty, at worst, of poor decision-making. In short, they probably say a lot more about the character of Thomas Moran than the guys he's attempting to throw behind bars.

(Via Bennett Loudon, author of the D&C report I linked at the outset, the young men face a total of 1-1/3 to 4 years; Stucki faces an additional tampering with evidence charge -- he allegedly removed Arman's PIGS jersey -- which could add an additional 1-1/3 to 4 years.)

And speaking of Moran, it appears the Geneseo Three aren't the only ones the DA is coming after. Per the D&C:

"The out-of-control binge drinking is going to end," Moran said moments after the arraignment of the members of an unsanctioned fraternity accused of causing the death of Arman Partamian, a 19-year-old student at the State University College at Geneseo.

"We've learned that many of the off campus fraternities have been operating illegal drinking venues where students come, show their student ID, pay $5 and get a cup and then drink without limitation," Moran said.

"I'm going to do everything I can to stop every one of those parties. If I have to start charging the fraternities with tax fraud, I’ll do that," Moran said.

To this I say: Why stop there? Moran should just start charging anyone who provides alcohol to minors with criminal nuisance and the assorted bevy of drinking infractions! After all, just because people usually find themselves charged with these "crimes" only after someone gets hurt, it doesn't mean that's the "only" time they can be applied. Come on, I've read the laws! All that these frat guys and sorority gals really have to do is create the conditions that "endanger" all the other kids on campus who, uhhh, drop five bucks at parties even though they have no idea what's going on inside.

Tom Moran, it's time to be a Real American! You know being a petty tyrant and pestering drunk kids about the stupid tax code isn't going to put a dent in off-campus partying; you gotsta pull out your jackbooted thugs and start raiding these hooligans, yo! A couple full-auto AR-15s to the forehead and soon enough word will start getting around campus that you're not fooling around anymore!

After all, you're the DA in a small college town, where students learn best by participating in teachable moments, observing their instructors and participating in hands-on activities. If you really want to beat the concept of criminality into these kids' dense skulls, no better way than to demonstrate it yourself.

"We Own Your Kids"

That's what a judge in North Carolina really meant to say during a divorce hearing when he ordered three children to switch from home school to public school.

Of course, I suppose you really can't be too surprised when people expect the state to make decisions they should be making for themselves.

Thanks a lot, enablers.

Maryland's Police State Is Alive and Well

A U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has dismissed a lawsuit alleging gross negligence and malicious conduct on behalf of Maryland police in the 2006 death of James Emerick "Jamie" Dean, who was shot and killed by a Maryland State Police sniper during a standoff in which Dean insisted he be left alone to contemplate suicide.

Distraught over impending orders to Iraq and the prospect of leaving his wife after having returned from horrific experiences in Afghanistan, Dean flew into a tirade over the Christmas holiday and stormed off to his father's house in the woods, where he would eventually find himself confronted by an assortment of paramilitary assault teams after concerned family members trusted police simply to make a "check the welfare" visit.

United States District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow dismissed the Dean family's suit primarily on grounds that the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars individuals from seeking damages against states in federal court "unless Congress has exercised its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override this immunity or the State has waived it."

This lawsuit was brought to federal court because Maryland had not waived immunity and therefore could not be sued, so essentially it was doomed from the start. However, while the Dean family retained no illusions that the state would admit fault in the needless slaying of a man who suffered from war-induced PTSD and pleaded with police to leave him to himself that fateful night, Jamie's widow Muriel told me yesterday, "I kind of thought this was the way it would turn out, but I had to try."

Admittedly, I'm not a legal scholar, but there really doesn't appear to be much legalese in the court's dismissal. It basically comes down to: "We've got immunity," ho-hum. But legalities aside, this decision should come as no surprise given that the state is the ultimate judge of its own behavior, and therefore very rarely admits any wrongdoing. (Incidentally, it's funny how the government loves the Constitution when it protects its own powers but simply ignores it when it doesn't.)

What I find particularly interesting in Judge Chasanow's ruling is her response to the plaintiffs' claim that Jamie Dean was unreasonably seized by police in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Now, as someone who believes that the Bill of Rights applies (or should apply) only to the federal government, not the states, I must point out that generally I would argue that the state of Maryland is under no obligation to observe the Fourth Amendment. However, because the Fourth Amendment has been incorporated against the states via the due process clause of the squalid Fourteenth Amendment, Maryland is legally compelled to honor it.

But this is where Judge Chasanow's interpretations get very peculiar. While Chasanow conceded that seizure occurred once police decided to surround the house in which Dean was contained, she nevertheless ruled that the "[p]laintiff[s'] Fourth Amendment claim turns on whether the use of deadly force was unreasonable," and ultimately concluded that Dean's death was the result of "reasonable police conduct, not excessive force."

Judge Chasanow's ruling is a perfect illustration of why government police are so infrequently held to account for the application of excessive force and a general abuse of authority. Absurdly, her decision rested explicitly on the conduct of police sharpshooter Sgt. Daniel Weaver, who made the decision to shoot Jamie Dean, while ignoring entirely the implications of the circumstances that led to Dean's decision to raise his weapon against police in the first place.

Despite the fact that Jamie Dean posed a threat to no one but himself, Maryland police proceeded to erect a barricade around the house he occupied. When Dean refused to come out, county police units initiated the use of lethal force by firing dozens of tear gas containers into the house, marking the point at which police went from "protecting and serving" to tactically assaulting Jamie Dean's civil liberties. Less than two hours after state police units arrived on the scene, Mr. Dean was dead.

Even St. Mary's County State's Attorney Richard D. Fritz, who cowardly refused to take legal action against his fellow tax-eaters in the wake of this preventable tragedy, wrote in his report following a death investigation that the tactics employed by the Maryland State Police "can best be considered as progressively assaultive and militaristic in nature," were "overwhelmingly aggressive," and were "not warranted under the circumstances of the facts present in the case."

While Fritz never actually used the term "excessive force" in his report, his description of the police department's actions can only be interpreted by rational observers as an expression of such behavior. Additionally, he emphasized:

"[T]here was absolutely no need to push an extraction of Mr. Dean. This was not a hostage situation, where an innocent civilian was being threatened by Mr. Dean; to the contrary, it was a barricade by a single individual, who was demanding to be left alone."

In other words, the standoff never should have been escalated by police to the point where shooting Jamie Dean was necessary, yet Judge Chasanow laughably insists that the force applied by police was "reasonable" and therefore not excessive.

Even Jamie Dean's family will tell you that Jamie didn't leave police with a lot of choices in the end when, after hours of unwarranted harassment, he finally decided to raise his rifle in the direction of a (badly misnamed) state police Peace Keeper vehicle, thus posing a mortal threat to the officers inside. However, the point remains that police acted recklessly and irresponsibly in escalating the situation to such a point to begin with. That Chasanow refused to take the full scope of events into consideration when ruling on the outcome is indicative of the omnipotence the state retains over the rest of us.

Moreover, as the inestimable William Grigg has written, "Armed aggressors have no right to self-defense." Just as a burglar has no moral right to shoot back if his intended victim decides to offer armed resistance, neither, it could quite reasonably be argued, do state-costumed thugs once they initiate aggression. However, to add insult to injury, Judge Chasanow offered the following:

Tragically, Sgt. Weaver’s shot resulted in Dean’s death, but this fact alone does not automatically give rise to a wrongful death or survival action. Furthermore, even if Dean’s death was caused by wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs’ state law claims would fail because Defendants would be shielded from liability by immunity. [emphasis mine]

How lovely. Even where victims of excessive force (or relatives of said victims) could actually get a judge to acknowledge wrongful conduct, it really wouldn't matter anyway because agents of the state enjoy immunity protections. So basically we're all just screwed no matter what.

In conclusion, this court decision highlights two very important facts: 1) The American people really don't have any rights in the eyes of the state, and 2) we don't have a justice system in this country; we have a legal system.

It's bad enough that the government can confiscate our property through its assortment of taxes and things like environmental or zoning regulations, but that's nothing compared to the fact that it can steal our very lives as well. And if federal courts in Maryland are any indication, it appears there's not a damned thing we can do about it.

John Mattingly: Maryland Needs More Tyranny!

John Mattingly, a private practice attorney in St. Mary's County, Maryland, who will be challenging incumbent Richard Fritz next year, recently criticized the county's top prosecutor for not prosecuting defendants to the full extent of the law.

When one hears the name Rick Fritz -- the man who, for starters, failed to hold any government police officers legally accountable for the murder of Jamie Dean in addition to sanctioning the persecution of 16-year-old John Edison, Jr. as he was held without bond in a detention center for a crime any sensible person would've known he didn't commit -- one might be tempted to think anyone would be a better choice.

Well, apparently not, if this report is any indication. To wit:

Mattingly said State's Attorney Richard Fritz (R) also mishandled a recent rape trial ending with the teenage defendant's acquittal, and that too many members of his staff with too little to do leave work too early in the afternoon.

Would that the state's prosecutors would actually do "too little" work. If they simply failed to show up to work in the first place, there'd be a hell of a lot fewer nonviolent citizens turned into "criminals" via bogus convictions for drug and gun possession and the like.

But more importantly, note that when Mattingly alludes to the rape trial of John Edison by suggesting it was "mishandled," he's really complaining because prosecutors failed to obtain a conviction.

In no uncertain terms, Fritz and his office -- specifically ASA Joe Stanalonis, who dumped the case on Dan and Julie White (no relation) at the last minute -- deserve to be heaped with scorn for mishandling Edison's trial. Not because they didn't win, mind you, but because they continued to press forward with the case even as evidence continued to mount that overwhelmingly suggested Edison was innocent.

John Mattingly may want to consider the fact that when a defendant is acquitted by a jury in less than one hour, it's pretty obvious that police and prosecutors are guilty of attempting to throw an innocent citizen into a government cage.

Which, yes, supports Mattingly's contention that Fritz needs to be replaced -- just not by a man like him who, apparently, believes the state's attorney's job is to win convictions, civil liberties be damned.

The War on Drugs: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Last April I wrote about the arrest of Terry Clarke, an owner of the Tiki Bar in Solomons, Maryland who was arrested on 41 counts of assault and weapons charges for shooting a rifle in the direction of three hunters trespassing on his property.

Yesterday the state of Maryland offered Clarke a plea deal that could still result in 75 years (!) in prison. (For these charges, you'd think he was actually accused of shooting at an almighty police officer!)

A copy of the agreement filed in court lists the maximum penalties that could be imposed for three counts of second-degree assault, a single count of reckless endangerment and eight weapons violations, and states that three counts of first-degree assault and 26 more weapons charges in the indictment would be dismissed.

This is how the criminal state works. Prosecutors trump up as many charges as possible to intimidate defendants in the chance that they'll plead guilty to lesser charges. This allows the state to boast its "leniency" even as it knows innocent suspects willingly accept prison sentences in hope of avoiding a life behind bars for crimes they didn't commit.

I'm not necessarily suggesting Clarke shouldn't pay a penalty for his actions if, in fact, he violently threatened people who were not threatening him. Even in a stateless society, it would be immoral to threaten lethal force against someone who does not initiate violence. If it weren't, there would be a lot more reports of girl scouts and vacuum cleaner salesmen being shot on people's doorsteps.

In short, one cannot do tangible harm to someone else simply by walking onto his property and ringing a doorbell. Similarly, even if the three hunters trespassing on Clarke's property did so knowingly but in the process neither threatened nor caused harm to Clarke himself, Clarke would not have been justified in initiating violent measures to get them to leave (if this is indeed what transpired). In contrast, Clarke certainly had the right to order trespassers off his property, and if they had failed to leave, that in itself justifiably could have been viewed as a threat of violence against Clarke. Moreover, Clarke also could have been entitled to damages if the hunters shot wildlife on his property without permission.

Unfortunately, however, these details essentially are neither here nor there. Clarke is being run through the mill by the state for the supposed "crime" of possessing illegal firearms as a result of a prior felony conviction. To wit:

The indictment filed last spring by grand jurors alleged that Clarke, now 45, illegally possessed the rifle – along with an Israel Military Industries model UZI B 9mm rifle, a .44-caliber Desert Eagle handgun, an IMBEL .45-caliber handgun, a Kel-tec CNC Industries sub-2000 9mm rifle and four shotguns — after being convicted of a felony narcotics trafficking offense.

The indictment accused Clarke of unlawfully receiving ammunition clips, participating in illegal weapons transactions, and participating in a ‘‘straw purchase" of four of the weapons, a term commonly referring to a gun sale to a third person on behalf of someone who cannot legally own a firearm.

In reality, Clarke probably should be happy he isn't also facing federal "racketeering" charges -- bogus crimes alleged by the government in order to punish mere behavior (such as paying a third party to obtain goods the state deems illegal).

But as for the matter at hand, the state of Maryland isn't even really going after Clarke for his alleged assault -- the plea offer eliminates charges of first degree assault, which under Maryland law means that a person has caused or attempted to cause "serious physical injury" to another. Absurdly, prosecutors are trying to lock this man away primarily on charges associated with a nonviolent drug conviction over two decades ago.

In any just society, the accused would only stand trial or pay reparations for acts or threats of tangible harm to others. In the case of Clarke's alleged assault, if he wanted to avoid trial or even admit to mishandling a rifle, he would in all likelihood be able to pay the men to settle the issue and that would be that. That's what should happen if indeed one violates the rights of another. Locking someone up in a cell and forcing taxpayers to foot the bills to house and feed people who are either innocent or simply guilty of making a stupid decision accomplishes nothing.

Keep in mind that Terry Clarke caused no tangible harm to any of the three men hunting on his property. Also consider the fact that charging papers state that the rounds he discharged landed a full 40 yards from the hunters. Clarke's insistence that he was shooting at birds to scare them away from the hunters seems just as plausible as the hunters' contention that Clarke was shooting at them.

At most, Clarke should be facing three counts of assault and a reckless endangerment charge, and given the specifics of the case it would be foolish to assume that prosecutors could automatically obtain a jury conviction. But of course the state knows this, so it has also exploited immoral drug laws just to increase its chances of getting its man. There's the state's idea of justice for you!

I'd love to see Clarke tell prosecutors to stick it on principle alone, but you could hardly fault him for succumbing to the state's iron fist in hope of eluding a prison sentence that could find him confined to a government cage for the rest of his life. However, if I were looking at a possibility of 75 years even with a plea, I think I'd rather take my chances that a jury wouldn't punish me nearly as severely as a judge would in the event I were compelled to admit guilt.

I don't know whether Terry Clarke actually assaulted those hunters or not, but one thing is clear regardless: He couldn't possibly have acted as criminally as the state is right now in its efforts to convict him.

The Supreme Court Hearts the Police State

This post is dedicated to all you conservatives out there who actually believe your Roberts-led Supreme Court majority will "restore" rights abducted by liberals, or even preserve individual liberties that, quite literally, are fleeting by the year. (Hint: The high court will never overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Rights to life, liberty, and property are not "granted" by any government. They simply exist naturally and ubiquitously. They are your rights no matter what. Therefore, governments can merely suppress them. Unlike the burglar who steals your wallet, the state can't even "give back" your rights after it's "stolen" them; these rights are still in your possession even if the state and its jackbooted thugs initiate limitless violence to prevent you from expressing them.

Case in point: Yesterday's appalling Supreme Court decision to allow evidence collected by police during an unlawful arrest to be used against a defendant. According to USA Today's Joan Biskupic:

When police mistakes that lead to an unlawful search arise from "negligence … rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," evidence need not be kept from trial, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority in the case from Alabama.

He was joined by the four other conservative justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The four liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — dissented. They said that because the search violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the evidence should have been excluded. "The most serious impact of the court's holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database," Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters.

I'm the first to admit there's not much to like about any of the robed totalitarians who sit on the Supreme Court, but Ginsburg hits this one on the head given the specifics of the case, which Biskupic explains thusly:

A warrant clerk in Coffee County, Ala., mistakenly told a police investigator that a warrant from a nearby county was out for Bennie Dean Herring, who had driven to the Coffee County Sheriff's Department to get something from his impounded truck. The Dale County computer error was quickly discovered. But by the time the warrant clerk alerted the police investigator, Herring had been arrested and found with an illegal pistol and with methamphetamine in his pocket.

Given the fact that police didn't even have a valid warrant to search Herring in the first place, they most certainly didn't have a warrant to search for guns or drugs. What's more, this search wasn't even conducted by federal investigators; Herring was searched by county police and only then indicted on federal gun and drug possession charges, which ultimately accounted for his case being heard by the Supreme Court.

Worst of all, even though the feds are well on their way to controlling everthing we do by turning just about any behavior they disapprove of into a federal crime, this ruling could very well be enforced against every state in the union via the putrid incorporation doctrine. Yay, freedom!

No doubt there are conservatives and liberals alike who cheer this decision, if only in support of the evil drug war. However, despite immoral laws and tyrannical politicians and prosecutors, each of us has the right to do what we like with our property so long as we do no tangible harm to anyone else -- and that includes the right to pollute our own bodies with drugs or carry firearms down the street.

Instead of upholding the natural rights of all citizens, the Supreme Court has violated them once again -- and in the process rewarded police negligence, which will result in more and more sanctioned abuse of the innocent at the hands of the state. And to take Justice Ginsberg's admonition a step further, such abuses won't merely be restricted to computer glitches and to innocents who've already been arrested; warrants will now essentially be meaningless, as they will be written narrowly and applied broadly as police will have license to search for anything and everything once they've gained legal access to your home. Indeed, what few protections the Constitution originally afforded are long, long gone.

This case was a no-brainer for anyone willing to apply a literal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires police to obtain, via probable cause, a warrant for any person or thing that is to be searched or seized. It does not give police the right to seize any property they just happen to stumble upon while searching for someone or something else.

Well, until yesterday anyway.

Government Indoctrination Centers Ordered to Stop Prayer

A federal judge has ordered the Santa Rosa County School District to stop promoting religion and prayer in the classroom and at school events.

U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers ruled Friday after school officials admitted allegations in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

This clash between students/parents and the state epitomizes the inherent unfairness and immorality of government-sponsored schooling.

Contrary to popular opinion, these types of cases have nothing to do with so-called "free speech" rights or "separation of church and state." They have to do with coercion.

Taxpayers who happen to endorse prayer in public schools will tell you that they should be free to express their religious views in schools they pay for; those who oppose prayer in public schools will tell you that their tax dollars afford them the right to be free of such practices.

Both arguments are valid, but only up until the point where the rights of one group encroach upon the rights of another. It is immoral to forcibly relieve someone of her property (i.e., steal her money and call it taxation) and then force her to conform to rules without her consent -- whatever those rules happen to be.

Therefore, the only moral course is to abolish government schools -- to separate school and state. Parents who wish to send their kids to schools that offer prayer will easily find private ones offering such services. Likewise parents who have no need for this. And so on and so forth, as privatizing education would allow parents of all walks to customize their children's schooling when schools offering a variety of specialized services began to sprout up.

Of course, even if a majority of Americans favored the abolition of public schools, politicians and bureaucrats would fight tooth and nail to prevent this. For they understand that government schooling has absolutely nothing to do with providing "free" education (much less quality education) to children and everything to do with taking everyone's money and using it to force as many kids as possible to be indoctrinated with statist ideology.

Resist Kidnappers, Get Arrested

Just so there's no confusion, kidnapping is legal as long as it occurs at the hands of thugs sporting government custumes, badges, and firearms.

Two years ago a 12-year-old girl was assaulted by Galveston police officers when she walked outside her house to flip a circuit breaker on for her mother.

As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me."

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.

This behavior is criminal and would be appalling even if the officers' victim was a grown woman. But she wasn't.

After the incident, Dymond was hospitalized and suffered black eyes as well as throat and ear drum injuries.

Not only did police viciously attack a child who didn't even match the description of the prostitutes they were allegedly looking for, but Dymond (who is black) and her father were both arrested for having the audacity to resist this kidnapping.

According to a statement by the officers' lawyer, "The father basically attacked police officers as they were trying to take the daughter into custody after she ran off."

Any fathers out there who wouldn't have?

And as if you even need to ask, "The city has investigated the matter and found that the conduct of the police officers was appropriate under the circumstances."

Police officers are nothing more than human beings adorned with the legal authority to commit crime.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. -H. L. Mencken

(Via Lew Rockwell)

Supremes Refuse to Review Obama's Citizenship

You'll just have to trust me on this, but when my mom called me last week to ask if I thought the Supreme Court would hear a case challenging Obama's eligibility to be president, I laughed out loud and said of course not.

Specifically, I asked her why she thought the Constitution would matter now, and it turns out I was right.

For the record, I really couldn't care less whether Obama's a "natural born citizen" or not. I have little regard for citizenship laws, mostly because I oppose the state in its entirety. And if there's no state in the first place, there's no president to worry about either, right?

No Evidence? No Problem! The Rape Case against John Edison, Jr.

This case apparently escaped my attention when it was first reported, but a 16-year-old southern Maryland boy is being held in an adult jail on charges that he violently raped a 12-year-old girl in late evening on July 4 or early morning July 5 (he was charged on July 5), assaulting her both vaginally and anally, and beating her with a belt.

The problem? John Edison, Jr. essentially is confined in a government cage over mere accusations of rape by the alleged victim. Maryland prosecutors presented to Edison's defense attorney prior to initial hearings no physical evidence that a rape had occurred, nor statements gathered from Edison himself or from the accuser. According to the Enterprise, a local St. Mary's County newspaper:

Edison is accused in charging papers of pulling a 12-year-old girl into his bedroom on July 5 and having intercourse with her. He is being held without bond on charges which include second-degree rape and a second-degree sexual offense. ‘‘Currently he’s being held at the St. Mary’s County Detention Center and charged with a sex offense against a child and he’s only 16 years old,” Edison’s defense attorney Kevin McDevitt said.

McDevitt argued that the only evidence presented at this time was the statement from the alleged victim. The defense attorney asked sheriff’s deputy James Fontana, who described the victim’s account of the rape, if he was aware of any other witness accounts or scientific evidence against Edison.

The deputy said he was not aware of any other evidence.

And according to a Washington Post report eight days before the aforementioned Enterprise article ran:

"[Edison] has done nothing wrong," McDevitt said. "Essentially what's going on in this case is a young girl got caught sneaking out by her parents over to his house, and she's scared, and that's the story that she gave."

McDevitt added that the 12-year-old gave Edison a hug before leaving his house.

On the most serious charges of second-degree sexual offense and second-degree rape, Edison is being charged under statute (a)(1), which states:

   (a)  Prohibited.- A person may not engage in a sexual act with another: 
  (1) by force, or the threat of force, without the consent of the other;

To understand the seriousness of the charges against Edison, on these felonies alone he faces up to 40 years in prison. All despite Deputy Fontana's admission that there were no witness accounts or scientific evidence suggesting Edison had even touched the 12-year-old girl. How District Judge Robert Riddle found enough evidence to allow these charges to stand, let alone hold Edison indefinitely, is beyond me.

Edison's attorney seems to agree. I don't make a habit of referencing St. Mary's Today, which I consider to be a highly suspect publication in terms of credibility, but it contains some choice quotes from Kevin J. McDevitt:

“This case is a shining example of how children’s missteps can result in a tragic miscarriage of justice,” McDevitt told ST. MARY’S TODAY.

“Despite my consistent requests The State of Maryland has yet to provide me or my client with a single shred of forensic evidence that would in anyway corroborate the violent rape that the victim has alleged.”

“It is impossible to have the type of violent forced rape that is alleged in the charging documents and leave no injuries or physical evidence whatsoever,” said McDevitt.  “My client anxiously wants this case to proceed as soon as possible so that he may prove his innocence and go home to his parents that miss him.”

Moreover, in a conversation I had this morning with Edison's aunt, Alice Gaskins, I was told that the state of Maryland admits that there is no evidence anywhere on the girl's hospital report -- taken only hours after this alleged rape took place -- indicating that a physical assault had occurred, much less a violent rape. In fact, the girl's hymen apparently was still intact at the time of her examination, meaning that she was still a virgin after Edison allegedly raped her. And if McDevitt's insistence that the girl gave his client a hug before leaving Edison's house is accurate, this alone should be enough to debunk the girl's accusation. After all, who would hug the person who just violently raped her?

I hope to learn more about this case from John Edison's famly in the coming days (the girl's name has not been released), but as of right now, it certainly looks like Edison's civil rights are being violated and that he's being considered by the state of Maryland to be guilty until proven innocent.

Drunk Cop Gets Only Two Days in Jail for Assault

St. Mary's County (Md.) sheriff's deputy David Goff, who was found guilty of DWI and assault after beating Shane Weasenforth while making an off-duty arrest last spring, was sentenced to only two days in jail.

Goff waived his right to appeal, leaving him with no criminal record, but what's most outrageous in this entire affair is that he's still drawing a taxpayer-provided paycheck while on vacation suspension and awaiting a hearing that will decide his fate on the police force.

I'm pretty sure I speak for at least a handful of taxpayers when I say that Goff should be fired immediately. Whether or not he technically earned himself a criminal record as a result of his drunken assault is irrelevant; Goff nevertheless exercised his authority under the badge to initiate a criminal assault on a citizen who was merely riding his ATV along the highway -- notwithstanding the hypocrisy of cops (and others on law enforcement payroll) who refuse to observe the laws against drinking and driving that they all too willingly bust us for ignoring.

Goff's attorney, Kevin McDevitt, said, "Since this incident, [Goff's] reputation has been ruined," adding, "He has lost his house, his family and his job, and a lot of his pride."

I've known Mr. McDevitt for almost ten years and I think he's a good guy, but I can't share his sympathy for Goff. I don't know why the guy would lose his house and his family over this, and certainly people make mistakes, but Goff certainly deserves to lose his job and suffer a hit to his reputation and pride.

McDevitt is not defending an everyday citizen here who was attacked by a government cop; he's defending a police officer who acted well outside his authority and used excessive force in manhandling a man who was originally minding his own business. What's more, the surprising thing here isn't that Goff used excessive force; it's that he got caught in the first place and was actually held to account for his crime. As I mentioned at the time of this incident, I highly doubt Goff's behavior even would have come to light if it wasn't witnessed by another civilian.

In short, the use of excessive force is routine on far too many police forces. Just ask the wife and parents of Jamie Dean, or Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo.

We can be somewhat relieved that Goff was held accountable for his actions. But we'll know justice was truly served only when he is relieved from duty and taxpayers are no longer robbed to subsidize this type of behavior. Or better yet, abolish government police forces altogether.

Don't Call the Cops

Unless you want to get sued, explains Will Grigg.

More Maryland Neighny-Statism

Even though Mercedes Clemens is certified to massage humans in the state of Maryland, regulators have shut down her equine massage practice because state law allows only veterinarians to massage animals.

Freedom of contract? Freedom to trade in labor? Nah...meaningless in Maryland.

Vive la France!

The French government is suing Continental Airlines for manslaughter over the crash of a Concorde in 2000.

A French accident inquiry concluded in December 2004 that the disaster was partly caused by a strip of metal that fell on the runway from a Continental plane that took off just before the supersonic airliner.

The Concorde ran over the superhard titanium strip, which shredded one of its tyres, causing a blowout and sending debris flying into an engine and a fuel tank.

Continental Airlines and its workers are charged in connection with a failure of aircraft maintenance.

Writes a pilot friend in response: "It's funny how the Airport Authority and air traffic control are not to blame for the deadly 'strip of metal' that they didn't clear off the runway."

Hellish Heller

For those of you who still insist the recent Heller decision was a victory for gun rights, you may be interested in checking out this article by Stephan Kinsella, who points out how, not even two weeks later, it's already being used to give the feds even more power over the states when it comes to regulating firearms.

So what does Heller stand for? Well, it makes it clear that gun limitations and regulations are perfectly permissible. Their only legitimate use--when the state thinks it's "reasonable"--is for self-defense against private criminals--not self-defense against public criminals--down with this whole right to revolution. So the ruling really helps entrench government power. And, of course, thanks to the perverse incorporation doctrine, the Second Amendment will no doubt be applied to the states ... by the federal government. I.e., yet more power seized by the feds. So let's see: Heller has further eroded two of the most fundamental limits on the central state: the right to revolution, and vertical separation of powers (federalism).

This might be a good time to refer you to Bothwell's Simple Rule: When you expect the state to determine your rights, you can expect the state to limit them.

The government cannot "grant" us rights. We have an innate right to our property and so have the right to the protection thereof, through armed self-defense, whether the state likes it or not.

D.C. Gun Decision: In Perspective

Loyola (Maryland) economics professor Tom DiLorenzo writes that the Supreme Court's acknowledgement of an individual right to bear arms illustrates the absurdity of allowing the federal government to determine the limits of its own authority.

Citing the erosion of state's rights during the Civil War era, he reminds us that while the high court's opinions previous to 1865 were considered by Congress, the states, and citizens to be just that -- opinions -- to our detriment they have since become the last word on constitutional matters.

The shocking thing about [yesterday's] decision is that if one man -- Anthony Kennedy -- voted the other way, then what -- we would all be forcefully disarmed?

A judicial dictatorship is what nationalists like Alexander Hamilton and his disciple, Justice John Marshall, wanted, and that of course is what we've ended up with. But imagine if the Court declared in 1805 that Americans do not have individual rights to own firearms. Do you think the Jeffersonians would have given up their firearms and genuflected to the black-robed deities of the Court? Hell no; they would have reached for them and commenced another revolution.

Unfortunately, we live in an era (and have for well over a century now) where the Supreme Court determines our rights for us; where its decisions essentially become the Supreme Law of the Land. As I explained yesterday, this should not be -- the court has no constitutional authority to overturn legitimate state laws. The Bill of Rights provides explicit limitations on federal power; it does not somehow grant the federal government plenary legislative powers over the states.

Given this widespread misapplication of the Constitution, yesterday's ruling "protected" an individual right that we already had, but it perversely did so for the wrong reasons. By exceeding its authority, it seems to many gun rights advocates that the court got this right because it "upheld" the Second Amendment. But what would we be facing now if, as Dr. DiLorenzo asked, Justice Kennedy went the other way? I shudder even to think, given our tendency to allow the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench.

It may appear that by applying the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court is merely extending constitutional protections universally. But this is a mirage. For one thing, it has no constitutional right to do so. But more importantly, to accept this notion is to give the federal government prima facie authority over virtually all state legislation, which contradicts the entire point of limiting its jurisdiction in the first place.

D.C. Gun Ban Ruling: Win/Lose

As expected, today the Supreme Court struck down the District of Criminals' draconian gun control law.

Many gun/freedom advocates, such as myself, are both excited and relieved by the court's ruling, but there's only one problem: it looks like the court's decision was wrong.

The good news to come from this decision is that the Supremes correctly ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms -- rather than, say, merely protecting the right to form militias, which almost certainly would be (perversely) regulated by the state in this day and age.

But the bad news is that the court seemingly has once again exercised extrajudicial authority; today's ruling is inherently unconstitutional because the Second Amendment is part of a bill of rights that limits federal authority, not state or local -- D.C. enjoys status as a pseudo-state. In short, as consitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman explained here, the Supreme Court has no authority to strike down valid state laws.

Given the Supremes' history of constitutionally approving federal statutes governing activities over which the U.S. government should have no legal jurisdiction (eg., the regulation of abortion and guns easily comes to mind), we've been somewhat conditioned to believe that the U.S. Constitution applies universally. However, it does not. For example, the First Amendment begins by stating, "Congress shall make no law..." It is a very distinct protection against federal usurpation of the right to free speech, religion, etc.; it does not prevent, say, Wisconsin from establishing criminal laws originating in religious dogma (eg., anti-sodomy laws).

However, comprehension of the federal government's authority vis a vis that states was severely compromised with passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, having been henceforth controversially and extensively interpreted by the Supreme Court to give the feds sweeping power to regulate the states, including the notion that each of the tenets outlined in the Bill of Rights applies to every state. Given that the Constitution itself was penned to guard against an omnipotent central state, I find it almost impossible to believe that the framers would have consented to the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment could be wielded to overturn legitimate state laws.

Libertarians are split on this issue, so if it is correct that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states, then the Supreme Court got the D.C. gun ban decision right. However, if you, like me, believe the founders would have been aghast to learn that this amendment has been consistenly interpreted to allow for increasing federal authority over the states' rights they so jealously guarded, your only conclusion in this matter is that the highest court in the land should have allowed this law, however distasteful in its own right, to stand.

UPDATE: J.H. Huebert has more on the good -- indeed, great -- aspect of this ruling:

It notes that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, or any right at all -- it just stops Congress from infringing a "fundamental right" you already had according to "libertarian political principles."

Mr. Huebert notes further along in his commentary that we can probably expect to see more lawsuits applying the Fourteenth Amendment in the attempt to end gun bans in other cities, though he admits this may be a "dubious theory." More interestingly, he says this "wouldn't trouble me too much," no doubt indicating that if the Constitution is going to be misapplied so often to our detriment, it may as well work to our favor every now and then.

I know Grandma always told me two wrongs don't make a right, but such is life when you're bound by the state's hegemony. If we were truly free, there would be no state to confiscate our guns and our natural right to protect ourselves in the first place, so it certainly seems we're forced to "play the game" if we want even a glimmer of hope in wriggling out of the state's tyrannical stranglehold.

Wave Good-bye to Privacy Rights

Considering the fact that congressional Democrats abandoned their promises to reign in the Bush regime and end the war in Iraq almost immediately after they were handed control of Congress by a gullible electorate almost two years ago, it probably should come as little surprise that Congress continues to give the White House nearly everything it wants, as the House passed a "compromise" FISA bill last Friday.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country.

[...]

The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

This new bill essentially retroactively legalizes the president's warrantless spying on Americans over the past five-plus years, and, because it grants the telecoms retroactive immunity for conspiring in government activity they allegedly knew to be illegal, Americans have necessarily been robbed of their only remaining means of finding out how their government operated under existing FISA laws.

Though this new "compromise" would require the government to obtain FISA court permission to wiretap Americans overseas, it does not require a warrant to eavesdrop on foreigners' phone calls with Americans.

Moreover, given that the bill allows the feds to initiate a domestic wiretap without court permission in the event of an "emergency" or in the event that "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to conclude that this bill lays the foundation for widespread abuse. After all, the definition of an "emergency" or "important" intelligence could vary widely; no one should be comfortable that American citizens will be at the mercy of a subjective federal government that retains a monopoly on the use of force and the will to wield it to accomplish desired ends.

The Senate has the opportunity to strike down this attempt to skewer privacy rights, but given that it initially voted back in February to broaden the government's spy powers, I'd expect nothing less than a rubber stamp as early as next week.

Land of the free, baby. Land of the free.

Girl Sues Dad over Grounding -- and Wins

A Canadian court ruled last week that the father of a 12-year-old girl had no right to ground his daughter for disobeying orders to stay off the Internet.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.

I have a hunch that most people (and parents, especially) would disagree with the court's ruling in this case, given how ingrained in legal precedent is the idea that adults are responsible for the welfare of their children (parents have actually been arrested for leaving sleeping children alone in a car within sight for mere minutes). And at minimum, it's generally understood by most folks that if two people bring a child into the world, it's their responsibility to care for it. Just as there are differing political philosophies, there is any number of child-rearing philosophies available to parents. Some work, some don't; but one would be hard-pressed to allege reasonably that parents should not have the right to instill within their own children values of their choosing so long as they cause no harm in the process.

To say that I support a father's right to ground his daughter for disobeying an order is redundant given my aforementioned thoughts, but I think it behooves us to examine why the Canadian court got its decision wrong.

It should go without saying that not all laws or legal rulings are moral or just (after all, even slavery was legal). Indeed, as a libertarian I believe in the natural rights of man (a universal right to life and liberty, for example) and contend that all laws should be based upon the non-aggression principle -- the idea that only the initiation of force (or threat of force) or fraud against a person or his property is immoral, and subsequently illegitimate (illegal). Certainly there is criticism of this principle in general and even disagreement in meaning among libertarians.

However, when I consider the idea of the initiation of force, I understand this to mean the initiation of violence (and when referring to force against one's person, I understand this primarily to mean physical harm), whether it come in the form of a government's collection of taxes or paternalistic mandates like helmet laws, or the individual act of rape or murder. Virtually all state edicts are violent, as they are all ultimately enforced at the point of a gun (just refuse to pay your taxes and see what happens). Likewise individual acts of violence against another, though whether or not one actually brandishes a weapon in the commission of a crime is irrelevant; any intentional act that forcibly violates the right of one individual to go about his affairs peaceably, unmolested, and in outright possession of his property should be construed a crime.

Therefore, when we consider the father who grounds his child -- in our current example, seemingly to prevent her from using a technological device enabling her to advertise "inappropriate" pictures -- we must approach it from the standpoint of whether or not he was initiating force (violence) against his daughter.

To be sure, any order passed from parent to child implies the use of force or coercion -- "Eat your peas, or you will get no dessert" was a common refrain as I was growing up -- but absent any presence of physical harm, one can hardly argue credibly that a crime has been committed. For starters, parents are responsible for caring for their children; the government is not. To operate from the pretense that a parent-child relationship is no different than one between two strangers is disingenuous and a bit absurd. Abuse and assault are different than acts of "tough love" that might offend the delicate emotional sensibilities of an obstinate child.

Furthermore, the only appropriate function of government ostensibly is to protect property rights, and in this case the daughter has no "right" to use property (the computer) that is owned by her father. Even assuming the daughter is the legitimate owner of the computer (perhaps it was a gift), the father was not relieving his daughter of her possession of the computer by stealing it; he was merely attempting to regulate its use.

Speaking of regulation, it's interesting, isn't it, that the state seeks to regulate our lives at nearly every turn, though in this case a Canadian court has taken issue with a parent's obligation to regulate the actions of his child? After all, were he to let his daughter run free with wild abandon and in the process harm herself, it's not altogether unreasonable to assume that the government would similarly assert its authority by accusing him of neglect (or some such).

By usurping one father's authority to discipline his child out of concern for her well-being, this Canadian court in all likelihood may have just set a precedent that henceforth will be used to argue the state's legal claim over its citizens' children.

Landmark Victory

I scratched my previous post down last night in somewhat of a hurry in between watering the plants and getting dinner started, so this morning I thought I'd revisit yesterday's Supreme Court decision to restore habeas corpus and illustrate how vitally important it is for every American who values civil liberties.

However, let's shake things up a bit and let some other bloggers weigh in:

LRC's Ryan W. McMaken:

[Sen. Lindsey] Graham and the GOP all want judges like Scalia, of course. Judges that will conclude that the government can kill, imprison, and rob anyone it wants at any time as long as the state has decided it has a good reason to do so.

John Paul Stevens is on his last leg. If he's replaced by another Thomas or Scalia clone, you might as well start packing your bags for some secret federal cage ASAP.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald:

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was -- and remains -- one of the great stains on our national political character. It was passed by a substantial majority in the Senate (65-34) with the support of every single Senate Republican (except Chafee) and 12 Senate Democrats. No filibuster was even attempted. It passed by a similar margin in the House, where 34 Democrats joined 219 Republicans to enact it. One of the most extraordinary quotes of the post-9/11 era came from GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, who said at the time that that the Military Commissions Act -- because it explicitly barred federal courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions brought by Guantanamo detainees -- "sets back basic rights by some 900 years" and was "patently unconstitutional on its face" -- and Specter then proceeded to vote for it.

[...]

Our political and media elite were more than willing -- they were eager -- to relinquish that right [to habeas corpus] to the President in the name of keeping us Safe from Terrorists. [Yesterday], the U.S. Supreme Court, in what will be one of the most celebrated landmark rulings of this generation, re-instated that basic right, and in so doing, restored one of the most critical safeguards against the very tyranny this country was founded to prevent.

Reason's Radley Balko:

Seems like a pretty serious blow to the Bush administration. I guess the only question now is whether the administration feels it's actually obligated to abide by the decision, or if it believes the president's absolute power in wartime means that in addition to ignoring Congress, he can ignore the Supreme Court, too.

If Lindsey Graham and some of his GOP cronies had their way, the Constitution would be amended to relieve us of all those irritating civil rights protections that are anything but guaranteed right now. Of course, I have to say it would probably jive nicely with the warrantless wiretapping, related domestic surveillance, and national security letters.

So that flushing sound you hear is the continued procession of our liberties down the proverbial toilet, but it looks like some Democrats and liberal members of the Supreme Court are at least trying to jiggle the handle. What's most disturbing is that this decision was 5-4, meaning that all four "conservative" justices voted to give the federal government the power to operate a virtually unimpeded police state -- first abroad but ultimately at home.

It takes a lot to make the Democrats look good, but the Republicans have been exceedingly good at it of late.

Grounded

A man in Webster, N.Y., is suing the town for prohibiting him from landing his helicopter on his own property.

... in an effort to resurrect his helipad, Casciani has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the town and Supervisor Ronald Nesbitt, claiming the law is unconstitutional under the First and 14th Amendments of the New York and U.S. Constitutions.

This guy may have a case under New York State law, but I can't see how he can argue protections of the U.S. Constitution, which places limits on federal power.

And anyhow, Mr. Casciani should be arguing on the merits of freedom of travel, i.e. the natural right of man to use his property and move about as he pleases so long as he harms no one else in the process. Even the almighty Constitution condones property rights violations.

(Thanks to Kramer.)

Janie's Got a Gun

A 14-year-old girl has been sentenced to probation after killing her father with a shotgun to end years of sexual abuse.

This is an interesting case, as it seems to fall in that libertarian gray area. The important distinction is whether this little girl committed patricide to prevent immediate harm -- that is to say, physical invasion of person or property -- or whether she killed her father, say, when he was asleep and incapable of mounting an attack.

Killing to prevent imminent physical harm is entirely moral and reasonable; killing in the absence of immediate danger, however, is not.

Based on the tenor of the article, it doesn't appear that the girl shot her father to prevent an impending attack; if she were an adult, she would not be entitled to argue self-defense. However, I actually think the court got this one right, but only due to the fact that we're dealing here with a child -- whose capacity for reason naturally pales in comparison to that of an adult, not least when taking into consideration a further diminished mental state as a result of such horrific abuse.

I can't say I'd necessarily adhere to moral restraints if I ever found out any adult physically harmed my child, but as an adult I'd be willing to accept the consequences coming my way. In the case of this little girl and her father, I'd say that on both sides justice was reasonably served.

Dean Family Files Wrongful Death Suit

Readers of this blog and residents of southern Maryland will remember the sad story of Jamie Dean, the Afghanistan war vet who was harassed, assaulted, and eventually killed needlessly by police on Dec. 26, 2006 after barricading himself alone in his father's house to contemplate suicide.

After more than a year of unsuccessful attempts to hold the state of Maryland and St. Mary's, Charles, and Calvert counties accountable for officer negligence, the family has filed a federal $20 million wrongful death suit in Maryland District Court (see filing here). According to the Washington Post:

The lawsuit, filed by the wife and parents of James E. Dean, alleges that 16 individual officers, the state and St. Mary's, Charles and Calvert counties showed "malice or callous disregard" for Dean's life during the confrontation at his father's home Dec. 26, 2006.

State Police Sgt. Daniel Weaver killed Dean with a single shot after a tense overnight confrontation in which SWAT teams and armored vehicles surrounded the house in rural St. Mary's and tear gas was repeatedly fired through the windows.

"The actions of the law enforcement officers at the scene . . . needlessly provoked Dean and increased the danger to themselves and to Dean," the lawsuit says.

Roger J. Myerberg, an attorney for the Dean family, said relatives decided to file suit after the state and counties denied liability. His clients' primary goal, he said, is to ensure that the agencies change their tactics and procedures so that similar incidents can be avoided in the future.

"There is a long list of things that shouldn't be done or should be done differently in the future," Myerberg said.

The Dean family is taking the smart approach by arguing that Jamie's death primarily was the result of unlawful police procedure. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has established a precedent upholding even no-knock SWAT raids under the flimsiest of justifications, so there's little chance the family could successfully argue that state and county police didn't have the right to establish perimeter positions around the Dean residence (after all, the U.S. police state hasn't continued to expand for no reason). However, they may have a shot at convincing a judge that Jamie's natural rights to life and liberty were violated when police instigated a deadly confrontation unnecessarily.

Which, oddly enough, is exactly where the Post gets this story wrong. It states:

After several hours of attempting to negotiate with Dean, who threw a police phone out the window and fired his weapon, officers began firing tear gas into the house to force him out.

Anyone who bothers to read St. Mary's County State's Attorney Richard Fritz's death investigation (.pdf) will note that police fired tear gas before Jamie ever fired a weapon or took any measure that may have been construed as threatening.

The entire timeline of events, which I took straight from the Fritz report, is outlined in my article on this tragedy. And if I can quote from my own piece, "the firing of the tear gas marks the most pivotal point in the timeline of events, as it defines the moment where the police go from protecting and serving to tactically assaulting Jamie Dean's civil liberties."

I'm hoping this case will at least be heard and isn't simply dismissed out of hand, as are so many complaints against our coercive state. And if there's any justice remaining in a country that's slowly and surely stripping us of any rights we once possessed, the decision will unequivocally turn in favor of the plaintiffs.

It's incomprehensible that anyone who believes in liberty could argue with a straight face that the government and its law enforcement agents had any business whatsoever meddling in the affairs of a man who posed no threat to anyone but himself and simply wanted to be left alone.

Looking For a Hero?

Try orthopedic surgeon Andrew Cappuccino on for size. Cappuccino is the doctor who essentially saved the life of Buffalo Bills tight end Kevin Everett after he was paralyzed during a game three months ago, and is almost certainly the reason Everett is already walking again and has the option of living a perfectly normal life.

In this solid SI article, Tim Layden explains how Cappuccino made the difficult decision to employ a controversial hypothermia treatment immediately upon diagnosing Everett's life-threatening injury, a decision that most likely allowed Everett to walk out of the hospital but one that probably just as easily could have held costly implications for Cappuccino if his patient hadn't responded well to it.

At one point during the debate over inducing hypothermia, Cappuccino called his wife [also a surgeon], whose medical judgment he trusts. She encouraged him to go with his instincts. "I'm human," says Cappuccino. "Things passed through my mind. If I do this and it blows up in my face, I'm exposing myself to a lot of scrutiny. We could lose the house, lose the cars, the kids don't go to college. But I had to be able to put my head on the pillow that night and believe that I did the best job I could do."

Many doctors and scientists remain skeptical of Cappuccino's treatment, noting that it's impossible to draw concrete conclusions about Everett's recovery because his was only one case. Even Cappuccino admitted that while he was cautiously optimistic about Everett's situation, chances were still bleak that the athlete would ever walk normally again. Still, Cappuccino is convinced the cold therapy helped Everett, who obviously credits his doctor for saving him.

As happy an ending as this story has, it's simultaneously almost impossible not to consider what might have been had Cappuccino's treatment not worked to Everett's benefit. Would he be the victim of a malpractice suit today? For patients whose prognoses are so dismal, it's hard to imagine how a doctor's good-faith treatment could actually make them any worse. After all, how could one "walk less" than not walking at all?

For all the benefits a judicial system affords genuine victims of malpractice, we also know how easily the system can be abused. With the many medical advances we've come to expect, it's easy to forget that doctors are still human, capable of error. We tend to focus on the one misdiagnosis that led to an untimely death instead of the many good diagnoses that allowed patients to go on living. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows of a good doctor who virtually had to close up shop because he had the misfortune to miss a tumor the size of a pea.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Andrew Cappuccino had every right to go with the flow, to play it safe, and to follow established protocols that just as surely would have saved Kevin Everett's life -- and that, somewhat ironically, probably would have left him to live it in a wheelchair.

The point here isn't to begrudge those doctors who, for every good reason, would have chosen the "safe" path in treating Everett. It's to help make sure everyone realizes how much character it must have taken for one man to have not.

When Is Rape Not a Crime?

Apparently when it's committed by a gang of defense contractors in Iraq tacitly sanctioned by the United States government.

Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.

Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

Unbelievable.

'Spanking' Case Dismissed

Via The Oregonian:

MCMINNVILLE -- A judge dismissed charges this morning against the two Patton Middle School teens accused of sexual harassment for swatting girls on the buttocks.

Judge John L. Collins said he acted "in the interests of justice" after both prosecutors and the boys' defense lawyers said four alleged victims had signed a civil compromise in the case, which drew national attention. The victims said they want to drop the charges.

Given the discretion that comes with being a judge, one wonders why Collins couldn't have acted in the "interests of justice" and just dismissed the case last week during pre-trial testimony and saved taxpayer resources, to say nothing of the thousands the Mashburns and Cornelisons have expended to fight this bullshit lawsuit.

Suffice it to say, I'm thrilled for these boys. This was the only appropriate outcome, but let's not forget that D.A. Bradley Berry originally charged Mashburn and Cornelison with felony sexual abuse, as if they had actually raped someone. If this doesn't smack of a small-town D.A. trying to generate publicity, I don't know what does, and I still think Berry needs to be brought up on charges of prosecutorial misconduct. If he wants the dog and pony show, put his ass in the hot seat. 

Free Michael Vick

Many people might consider Michael Vick to be little more than your run-of-the-mill street thug, but he's nothing compared to federal prosecutors who are exercising extraconstitutional powers to convict him of animal cruelty, gambling, or whatever else they come up with.

William L. Anderson has a good piece today on how the feds have Vick by the balls, and why the central issue in this case isn't the guilt or innocence of a football player, but the dangers federal authorities impose upon all of us.

[There] is no legal justification for federal involvement. True, the feds (thanks to the courts, which have expanded Washington’s power well beyond any Constitutional bounds) constantly invoke the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, but that clause is used only as a tool to increase the government’s authority over nearly every aspect of our lives. What once was a statement that gave Congress authority to deal with issues of commerce between the states has become a legal excuse for Congress to stick its nose where it never was intended to go.

[...]

If Vick decides to plead guilty, it will be one more episode of the disappearance of the right to a fair trial. Why would Vick plead out? It is because federal prosecutors are preparing to bring in more indictments, this time under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. This abominable "law" (if one can call it that) takes so-called bad acts and then bundles them into the federal "crime" of "racketeering," which is a nice way of saying that under RICO, people are charged with what only can be called imaginary crimes.

Anderson explains that RICO is so powerful that most defendants cannot possibly elude a verdict of guilt, as prosecutors accuse individuals of racketeering (alleging extortion or illegal gambling) instead of charging them with actual crimes, thus avoiding the burden of proving "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

This article explains very nicely the overreach of the state and why Michael Vick never should have been charged with a federal crime in the first place. After all, dogfighting is already a crime in Virginia. However, while I know I'm going to take a bunch of heat from readers accusing me of defending animal cruelty, I have to wonder why dogfighting is a crime at all. After all, dogs are either property or they're not. If they're property, the owner is entitled to use his property as he sees fit. And if dogs are not property (i.e. if they have "rights"), well, then there's essentially no limit to the weight the government is able to level on the rest of us in order to enforce its own arbitrary values.

For the record, I think dogfighting is despicable. I think anyone who engages in it is cruel and barbaric. I wasn't surprised when I heard Michael Vick was (allegedly) associated with it. You can count me as one of those people who thinks he's little more than a common thug, if for several months a year he used to play pro football for a living. Indeed, anyone who would knowingly give someone else herpes has to have questionable moral character, to put it lightly. In short, he's a punk.

But Michael Vick's dubious moral character shouldn't have any bearing on this case, despite the fact that widespread social aversion to the cruelty of dogfighting will compel many (most?) people to immediately pronounce him guilty and, worse yet, tacitly condone his outrageous prosecution and likely incarceration at the hands of the federal government.

I realize we're all, like, toootally enlightened as a society today and the trampling of property rights is super-cool so long as it's done for the "greater good." But the fact that dogfighting has been made illegal in all 50 states strikes me as a little odd. I mean, doesn't our near-universal disdain for the "sport" indicate that dogfighting exists only in the most depraved depths of society, and that the vast, vast majority of the population would never engage in it anyhow? And if the state really wants to protect animals, why the hell do the cops always shoot man's best friend, even when the dogs aren't acting aggressively?

Moreover, if people should be prosecuted for fighting dogs, does that mean they should likewise be prosecuted for fighting fish? Certainly more than a handful of us have at one time or another put a few Betta fish in a bowl and watched as they duked it out to the death. If dogs and fish should be treated differently under the law, would that indicate that we allow ourselves to fall victim to the "cute factor" (scroll to bottom) when crafting legislation? And if fish should be given the same legal protections as dogs, well..uh..should we be looked upon as being sane enough to write laws in the first place?

Okay, I know I'm starting to ramble here, but maybe it's because of the nausea brought on by having to defend both a repulsive human being like Michael Vick and dogfighting, not to mention discuss a repulsive central government that continually seems to find protections for animals as it continually erodes those set in place long ago for humans. Like it or not, the Declaration of Independence says that all men (not men and animals) are created equal, endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (look it up for yourself).

Too many people allow their beliefs and opinions to be governed by emotion instead of the concept of property rights or natural rights. You may find someone's activity distasteful or offensive, but it certainly doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal, especially if it hurts no one else. Slavery was (and is) immoral because it subjected to the custody of humans other humans, each possessing the natural right to life. If we're content to illegalize dogfighting, we should likewise shut down cattle and turkey farms, the Iditarod, and zoos (as some no doubt already argue).

Those who would empower the government to ban the things we merely find repulsive ought to know that we will eventually live in a country where virtually nothing is legal (everything repulses someone), and that the only ones who will have any freedom whatsoever will be those who are above the law as a result of their power to determine upon whom they will enforce it.

Freedom and liberty usually sound like pretty words. But it would be nice if we'd pay more attention to the notion that our ability to enjoy the things we like rests solely on our acceptance of others to enjoy the things we hate.

Mashburn and Cornelison Aren't Alone

Radley Balko has the story of Mark O'Hara, who was released from prison this week after serving two years of a 25-year sentence after being convicted of drug trafficking simply for possessing 58 pills for which he had a legal prescription.

O'Hara is free after an appellate court rightly deemed the trial "absurd" and tossed out the verdict. Prosecutors are apparently still considering what to do next.

Given the way they've wasted taxpayer money and court time and needlessly harassed Mr. O'Hara, in a just world their "next step" would be submitting their own letters of resignation.

Whole report here.

Unfortunately, we live in nothing close to a just world, to which Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison can attest. These Oregon boys are also the victims of an overzealous prosecutor who, in my humble opinion, seems to be much more guilty of child abuse than the boys he's raking over the coals.

Bah, Humbug!

A Caledonian-Record editorial slamming the idiocy of a Massachusetts school's decision to play Scrooge and ban playground chase games puts my recent post on the topic to shame:

There is something wrong when a country becomes so litigious, so afraid of lawsuits, that a school district bans what kids have been doing for millennia as part of their growing up. It has always been commonplace that if you followed all of the cautions of your lawyer, you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Metaphorically, that is what Attleboro's school board is doing. They are afraid to get out of bed in the morning because there is a chance in a hundred that some lawyer, somewhere, might sue them in the name of a parent whose child scraped his knee playing tag.

So we have much of the younger generation vegetating in front of televisions and computers getting great exercise watching and doing computer games. That is, until the danger of a lawsuit coming from the parents who believe their child developed carpal tunnel syndrome from manipulating his Play Station makes computer games too dangerous to allow.

Say it with me now:

There's no place like the Nanny State.
There's no place like the Nanny State.
There's no place like the Nanny State.

[HT: Andy Roth]

Tagged by the Nanny State

Well, more like the Nanny City, but elementary school officials in Attleboro, Mass., have banned games like tag and touch football at recess for fear that injuries will lead to lawsuits against the school.

Recess is "a time when accidents can happen," said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe, who approved the ban.

While there is no districtwide ban on contact sports during recess, local rules have been cropping up. Several school administrators around Attleboro, a city of about 45,000 residents, took aim at dodgeball a few years ago, saying it was exclusionary and dangerous.

Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Spokane, Washington, also recently banned tag during recess. A suburban Charleston, South Carolina, school outlawed all unsupervised contact sports.

Anytime is a time when "accidents can happen," and this ban highlights how the more enlightened among us attempt to make life risk-free. Unfortunately, though, I almost can't blame the school's officials for their concern over getting sued, as it's an all too prevalent reality today.

Too bad it's not as easy to ban judges who allow such frivolous lawsuits in the first place.

Meet Cory Maye

Radley Balko describes his first meeting with Cory Maye. I am particularly impressed with this point:

Seems to me that death penalty supporters should rally to Cory Maye's cause. Because if the guy I met and heard described in court testimony this week can be executed, then it's not an exceptional punishment, it isn't reserved for the most heinous of crimes and dangerous of offenders, and the moral case for keeping it around rests on a pretty flimsy foundation. If this guy gets executed, for doing what just about any of us would have likely done in the same situation, then just about any of us could well be where he's sitting right now.

Nothing truer than that right there.

Balko has a great synopsis of the case up on Reason today, too.

Cory Maye Death Sentence Tossed

Via Radley Balko, here's a report on the Cory Maye hearing from the Clarion-Ledger.

A Small Victory

Radley Balko's first report after a couple rulings in the Cory Maye hearing looks promising.

Cory Maye will not sleep on death row tonight. Nor, for that matter, any night for the foreseeable future.

At the conclusion of the hearing today, Judge Michael Eubanks ruled on two of the defense team's battery of arguments. Both rulings from the bench tonight dealt with Rhonda Cooper's competence. Judge Eubanks found that Ms. Cooper was competent for the trial, but incompetent for the sentencing.

I have my quarrels with that ruling, obviously. But in the short run, it means that Cory will at the very least get a new sentencing trial. And until and if that happens, he will no longer be on death row -- and for the moment is no longer condemned to die.

Public defender Rhonda Cooper was Cory Maye's original attorney, and by almost all accounts she was a train wreck and mounted an absolutely pathetic case. Balko notes that it could be a month or more before Judge Eubanks rules on the balance of the defense team's arguments, but he is retaining cautious optimism. More updates as they come in.

Cory Maye Hearing Underway

Radley Balko, Cato Institute policy analyst and proprietor of TheAgitator.com, is in Mississippi covering the Cory Maye hearing, which will determine whether Maye is granted a new trial. Maye was sentenced to death row for shooting police officer Ron Jones during a drug raid in 2001 in what was almost certainly a self-defense reaction to the surprise raid.

Balko hasn't posted anything on his blog today, which is probably a good indication that there's a report on the hearing coming soon. But check out this post from yesterday, where Balko depicts the confidential informant who was relied upon to legitimize the raid. Absolutely unbelievable. Also, Mississippi's Clarion-Ledger newspaper reported yesterday that the informant's brother disputed testimony that led to the raid in the first place.

Statements by a confidential informant, Randy Gentry, led authorities to raid the duplex where Maye lived. Authorities found only remnants from a marijuana cigarette in Maye's duplex.

Gentry testified today that, working as a confidential informant for Jones, he twice bought drugs from Jamie Smith, 21, who lived in the other side of the duplex. He said Maye was not present the first time he went to see Smith, but Smith told him that he got the drugs from Maye. The second time, Gentry said, Smith left to get the drugs from Maye.

But Gentry's brother, Sherman Gentry, disputed that testimony, saying there was only one drug purchase and that he drove Randy Gentry to the duplex to make it. He also said his brother left the duplex with a young man who looked about 16 or 17 and was not Maye.

Smith was charged in the drug raid but never prosecuted. He skipped bail and has never been found.

Read the whole story.

I don't think anyone has done more to shine a light on this case than Balko has, as he has covered it exhaustively for almost a year. Spend some time studying all of the reports, and it won't be hard to conclude that the state of Mississippi is most likely readying to put Cory Maye to death for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and for having the temerity to protect himself from what he legitimately thought were intruders set to do him harm.

Whatever the turnout of this case, Radley Balko deserves a medal for highlighting the injustice that's driven it.

Say Cheese!

Texas attorney Paul Kubosh plans to have his brother run a red light intentionally in order to ignite a legal battle over traffic cameras.

Here's the part that strikes me as interesting:

Kubosh's argument hinges on the way in which the city has converted a criminal offense into a civil crime, denying motorists the ability to defend themselves fully in court by shifting the burden of proof to the owner of a vehicle. Kubosh says Houston never thought about installing cameras until it began running a budget deficit and needed the extra revenue.

Though highly speculative, I've always believed the widespread installation of red light cameras is nothing but a revenue generation program conducted under the cloak of "highway safety."

Radley Balko wrote recently that he received a $50 or $75 ticket for apparently running a red light, though he couldn't recall doing so. This, of course, is one common gripe with the entire program, because it's virtually impossible to prove whether you actually ran a light or the camera malfunctioned. But assuming that he had in fact run the light, Balko noted that the fine was most likely intentionally set low enough to discourage most people from taking time off work to fight the thing, and therefore simply pay the ticket.

I wish Mr. Kubosh and his brother luck in their effort.

My Undying Plea

David Warby, the New York lawyer seeking billions in damages "on behalf of Ground Zero cleanup workers and others against managers, owners, controllers and leasors of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex," is now representing Sister Cindy Mahoney, a nun who claims she is dying from lung disease as a result of spending six months at Ground Zero as a volunteer with the American Red Cross.

According to the New York Post, Mahoney's dying plea is for her body to be autopsied "to prove that she and her fellow 9/11 workers were sickened by the poisonous air at the site" -- no doubt as an excuse to dole out even more tax dollars to compensate more and more people who may have been harmed during clean-up efforts. As Sister Mahoney puts it: "The government should help these people - not leave them to die like I'm dying."

I believe a case can be made justifying government compensation for public employees who were killed, injured, or sickened as a result of their efforts on 9/11 and days following. After all, police officers, firefighters, and others in public service who were sent to the scene have no choice but to obey orders (even though Jeff Jacoby has detailed a good argument explaining why the federal 9/11 fund was a mistake).

That said, the government doesn't owe a nickel to people who volunteered their time at Ground Zero, even if -- God forbid -- said volunteers develop physical ailments that can be credibly linked to their efforts. I certainly feel sympathy for Sister Mahoney, for humanity is lucky to have among it those who would give of themselves for six months to comfort total strangers. However, one of the few things remaining that the government cannot actually force us to do is volunteer, and so it by default could never "leave people to die" for doing so.

If 9/11 brought out the best in us, it's becoming fairly clear that its aftermath is bringing out the worst. It's bad enough that, if successful, Mr. Warby and his associates will only dissuade good citizens from volunteering in emergency situations, as a result of going after private construction companies and the like. But it's outright absurd to assume that taxpayers bear responsibility for the choices people make of their own free will.

I may be headed to hell for writing this, but here's my undying wish: If Mr. Warby -- whose 9/11 cases likely include legitimate claims -- insists on enriching himself at the expense of taxpayers, he could at least refrain from propping up nuns to give the impression that government will somehow be doing God's work by subsidizing those for whom it's not responsible.