Heads Up
A Weekly edition of News from around our country
December 20, 1996 #14
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html.
----------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL MURDER
The 1985 abduction, rape and murder trial of
a young girl from a Chicago suburb is in the news
again. When it happened, it was the type of heinous
crime that shocked the public conscious in the wealthy
Chicago suburbs. It was a crime that made the public
demand swift retribution.
So, the police went out and caught some
"perpetrators." The prosecutor successfully prosecuted
them, and the judge sentenced two of them to death.
The problem is, the ones convicted didn't do it.
In fact, in 1985, another man -- who was already serving
a life sentence for the rapes and murders of a 7-year old
girl and a 27-year old woman -- admitted to his lawyer
that he was the lone killer.
But, prosecutors hid that and other exculpatory
information from the defense team. The prosecutors
wanted a death sentence, and the man who confessed
would not formally tell authorities his story unless they
promised not to seek the death penalty. So,
investigators contrived some evidence and railroaded
the other guys. "Testilying" is the new term for it.
That's becoming rather common nowadays.
The convicted appealed, of course. Mary Brigid
Kenney, of the Illinois attorney general's office was
charged with fighting the appeals of one of the men.
She looked at the evidence, found it stunk to high
heavens, and, in 1992, ended up resigning her position
in protest. She said the state was trying to kill an
innocent man.
Later, DNA tests proved that the men convicted
were, at least, not the rapists. Then one of the
sheriff's deputies originally investigating the case
recanted his testimony. He said that he had originally
testified falsely. In other words, he lied!
Eventually, there was an acquittal. And more. . . .
A special prosecutor, William J. Kunkle, was
put in charge to investigate this mess, and a grand jury
formed. And . . . well, well . . . last week, they
indicted three former DuPage County assistant prosecutors
and four sheriff's deputies for conspiracy and
obstruction of justice in the wrongful murder conviction.
"In a free society there must always be a line
between vigorous prosecution and official misconduct,
between advocacy and unfairness, and between justice
and injustice," the special prosecutor said as he
announced the indictments of the lying officials. "This
indictment charges that line was crossed by seven people."
Yup. And they should all get natural life in
prison for it, too. They did, after all, conspire to use
the law to murder two innocent men. And they're
probably still doing that type of thing. One of the
former prosecutors is now a DuPage County judge and
another is an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago.
Needless to say, many prosecutors are a bit
worried. They're supposed to be legally untouchable for
their official actions, you see. For instance, the current
DuPage County State's Attorney, Joseph E. Birkett, was
quoted by the New York Times as saying the indictments
will have a chilling effect on prosecutors everywhere.
"Charging prosecutors for conduct in the
performance of their duties is unheard of," Birkett
said. "If this type of allegation can be made,
prosecutors will have to second guess everything they do."
Exactly! And it's about damn time. The type of
"law enforcement" Birkett supports is both un-American
and un-Constitutional.
What Birkett and most prosecutors in the
country forget is that their function in government is
to protect all rights of all people all of the time.
And that includes those accused of a crime. Instead,
they take an adversarial position in most cases -- let
the accused fend for himself. Worse, many regularly
allow -- and even encourage -- perjury by police
officers and other witnesses.
A few police officers have been convicted for
perjury before. Now it's time to start on their
leaders: The prosecutors. Any public official knowingly
accusing an American citizen falsely of a crime should
go to prison.
Yes, this case should send a message to
prosecutors across the country, all right. And that
message is way, way overdue!
MONEY AS SPEECH
Campaign finance laws are a farce. So,
Congress is considering further restrictions on third
parties' sources of contributions. You know, political
action committees, unions, law firms and such.
Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John
McCain (R-AZ) have already promised to introduce
legislation to ban political action committees, require
that 60% of money raised in a congressional race
comes from within that district, and limit campaign
spending.
Still, that won't work. All money -- 100% of
it -- should come from registered voters within the
congressional district. Constituents in the districts
elect them. Therefore, those elected must be beholden
only to constituents for their campaign finances.
All other campaign contributions should be made totally
illegal.
And, there should be a spending cap; say a
maximum of one dollar for each vote in the previous
election. That will give challengers a better chance, as
well as keep the incumbents closer to the people.
RETROACTIVE LAWS ARE ILLEGAL
All retroactive laws are unconstitutional.
Supposedly, we are protected against such
heavy-handed political impositions. Our social compact
with government, the United States Constitution, forbids
such actions by government. That is, if We the People
are willing to enforce the issue.
First, we should ask our Representatives and
Senators if they intend to honor their oath of office.
You know, the one where they swear to uphold, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States. . . .
Then, ask your Member of Congress to read
Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution,
which states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto
Laws shall be passed." This sentence should be pretty
clear -- even to a Member of Congress or a Congressional
aide -- since the operative word here is "No." The other
operative words of interest to us are the Latin words
"ex post facto" -- which is legalese for criminalizing an
innocent action and then, retroactively, punishing it as
a crime.
In the Federalist Papers (#44) James Madison
wrote: "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws
impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to
the first principles of the social compact and to every
principle of sound legislation."
Alexander Hamilton expanded on that thought
in Federalist #84 when he wrote: "The creation of
crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other
words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things
which, when they were done, were breaches of no law,
and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been,
in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments
of tyranny."
In other words, according to Madison, passing a
retroactive law violates every principle of sound
legislation, and he expected American legislators to know
better. Hamilton, however, was a little more blunt.
"Tyranny," he calls it.
Even before the Federalist papers, Sir William
Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on the Law," was quite
clear in his opinion of ex post facto laws: "These are
wholly unreasonable," he began the section. Blackstone
then contends that all laws should be passed, and the
people notified, well in advance of their effective date.
During the Constitutional Convention, James
Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, feared that even
"to put the ex post facto provision in the Constitution
might proclaim that we are ignorant of the first
principles of Legislation, or are constituting a
Government which will be so." William Samuel Johnson,
a delegate from Connecticut, thought the clause
"unnecessary, and implying an improper suspicion of the
National Legislature." They too thought American
legislators would know better. Apparently, though, they
didn't anticipate the type of politicians we have running
the government in Washington today.
Some lawyers say the ex post facto provision only
applies to criminal law. The United States Supreme
Court, however, said otherwise. The ex post facto
provision applies to any law imposing a penalty.
Therefore, it doesn't matter if we're talking about
a tax package, environmental laws, rules and regulations,
or gun laws. If the law, rule or regulation is retroactive
it is, as James Madison instructs "contrary to the first
principles of the social compact and to every principle
of sound legislation."
Or, it is, as Alexander Hamilton
puts it: "Tyranny."
Tell them so.
MADISON WARNED US
"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes
in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that
his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be
executed?" asked James Madison in 1787. His words ring
very true again today.
Later, in The Federalist #44 he wrote, "The sober
people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy
which has directed the public councils. They have seen
with regret and indignation that sudden changes and
legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal
rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and
influential speculators, and snares to the more
industrious and less informed part of the community.
They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is
but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every
subsequent interference being naturally produced by the
effects of the preceding."
Madison was writing about the capricious
legislative actions of Great Britain. But, if we rewrote
that in modern English, most Americans would identify
it as describing today's federal government.
A few years ago, Business Week reported that
there are more than 100,000 new laws, rules and
regulations enacted in the United States each year.
Between 1976 and 1986, state legislatures alone made
up 248,000 new laws. And, on average, each of these laws
spurred at least ten new regulations.
And that's only the state governments, folks.
The federal government is even worse. There are over
11,585 pages of IRS regulations, 11,270 pages of
regulations for Agriculture, 11,808 pages for the EPA,
and 5,368 for Labor, to name just a few affecting our
personal activities. A quick look in a public library
showed 211 fat books containing 122,027 pages of Federal
regulations directly affecting American citizens.
That's 122,027 pages of regulations alone, folks,
not laws passed by Congress. And, we're responsible for
obeying every damn one of them! When you also factor
in federal laws, this gets way, way out of hand.
The most important function of government is
the protection of the people -- to protect the free
exercise of our rights and liberties. Instead,
legislators and regulatory agencies seem to be trying to
classify every known human activity as either prohibited
or mandatory.
Worse yet, any of these rules and regulations
can be arbitrarily enforced on an unsuspecting citizen at
any time. And, although they might be officially labeled
rules and regulations by legislators, to the citizen they
have the full force of law. After all, what happens if
you break one of these little bureaucratic jewels?
Agents with guns come after you and courts fine you
and/or put you in prison, that's what!
Madison was right. An over regulated society is
not conducive to business -- and hence, to building
wealth within that society. These actions by the federal
government are, in effect, stymieing the welfare of the
country.
Is it any wonder so many American business',
and American jobs, are moving to less regulated countries?
STUPID LAWS
An Amish farmer near Orrville, Ohio faces
sentencing next month for killing owls. You see, owls
are predators, and he raises ornamental and game
birds -- hundreds of them.
The farmer said that the great horned owls
endangered his business. No doubt! They see his farm
as a great source of free food.
The farmer first tried using a decoy to keep the
owls away. But the owls soon got wise and pecked it
away. So, the farmer used traps to kill a few of the
owls. That's when his problems with the critter cop
division of the environmental enforcers began.
The horned owls are not endangered. That's
not the problem here. As Steven Gray, assistant chief
of the Ohio Wildlife Division said, the traps are frowned
upon because they might catch a rare species.
Might?? Evidently, the State of Ohio has much
more concern for a protected predator that "might" get
caught than for the livelihood of one of the state's
families. That is sad.
The farmer, Melvin Troyer, could get 90 days in
jail and/or a $750 fine as the result of Ohio's
bureaucrats forgetting why governments are formed.
MILITIA NEWS
The news of recent gun legislation has brought
national attention to the government's continued efforts
to ban firearms. The most recent and alarming is the
Domestic Violence Gun Grab. This law has opened a
Pandora's Box of probabilities concerning future
legislation involving our Constitutional Liberties. It
now seems that simple misdemeanors can become the rule
of thumb for stripping any citizen of their rights!
Shall we stand by and allow our elected officials to
pretend that they are so naive they had no knowledge
concerning the legislation voted upon? Shall we stand by
and allow our elected officials in both political parties
to turn this great country into a slave state? Or worse,
a slave state enforced by a Federal Police Force?
How shall we stop them you ask? The answer
is simple. UNITY!
Our plan is to unify all members of the
militia/patriot movement together with other concerned
citizens of the political community into one national
organization. The major goal of the National
Organization would be to preserve the Constitutional
and unalienable liberties of all Americans through the
use of the public information, petition and electoral
process. A secondary goal of the new organization will
be to educate its members on methods of insuring their
own survival and protection.
Combined, we could become a political force
never before seen in this country. We might also become
the last real deterrent against big government socialism
and oppression.
Work is still in progress on just such a National
Organization and the new year will bring a new direction
in how the average citizen deals with its government.
Further information shall be released in future editions
of "Heads Up."
-- Lance R. Crowe Psico1@bgn.mindspring.com
MERRY CHRISTMAS
We hope that each of you, and your families, enjoy the
blessings of a very, very Merry Christmas.
-- END --