posted April 09, 2009 12:21 PM         

quote:

---

as for cell phones they can record what's going on around them even when not in use. unless you take the battery out you are carrying a recorder which can be listened to at will...

---

posted April 09, 2009 12:53 PM         

If computers can be activated remotely, why not? EX: The ON Star system in some cars. If they [on star] can turn your car off and on [ignition] if the technology has been refined enough they can turn your cell off and on remotely as well. Interesting, non the less.

posted April 09, 2009 12:53 PM         

all this tappings, reminds me of the movie 'enemy of the state'. we need a version 2 telling us about our cell phones.

posted April 09, 2009 04:57 PM         

"The federal magistrate judge balked and asked the Justice Department to submit an additional brief to demonstrate that such a request would be legal.

Instead, prosecutors asked Judge Hogan to step in. He reviewed the portion of federal law dealing with "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices--terms originating in the world of telephone wiretapping--and concluded it "unambiguously" authorizes the e-mail surveillance request."

in other words - though they went through the motions of doing it legally, when the first judge "balked" they just went around him and used someone they knew would back them up. what is that term? oh yes, kangaroo court...

posted April 10, 2009 07:46 AM         

quote:

---

they just went around him and used someone they knew would back them up.

---

posted April 10, 2009 10:44 AM         

Hahaha, our entire criminal justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. Now, acoustic wants to overturn centuries of jurisprudence and say the accused must prove their innocence. What trash.

Memo to all legal scholars here. The burden of proof rests entirely, 100% on the prosecution to prove with an affirimative prosecution that so and so did such and such and that such and such is a crime. Got that? The prosecution must prove "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" the defendant is guilty of the crime they're accused of committing. The Defendant doesn't have to prove a damned thing and doesn't even have to testify in their defense. The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser. In the case of a criminal prosecution, the accuser is the prosecutor.

No defense attorney with 2 brain cells to rub together would let you anywhere near a jury acoustic. If you got by the Judges questioning in the Jury Selection phase of the trial, the defense attorney would lay a preemptive challenge on you and get you dismissed.

Likewise, any prosecutor in a terrorist case would dismiss you immediately. Your nutty support for and attempts to glorify terrorists would get you sent packing...PDQ.

The file labeled "Things acoustic Knows Nothing About" is overflowing.

So, after 3 days, the best effort here to produce citizens names whose civil rights were violated by Bush or the Patriot Act consists of one person named Al-Haramain...who btw didn't have his civil rights violated at all. Perhaps you failed to read the fact this was a terrorism case. Perhaps you also failed to read or have any knowledge of the fact the FISA Court of Review has recently ruled that Bush DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO WIRETAP AND OTHERWISE SURVEILLE TERRORIST SUSPECTS...WITHOUT A WARRANT. Bush always had that right. The FISA Court didn't give Bush or any other President that right. That right has always existed. In fact, Bush and any other President has the Constitutional DUTY to keep the nation safe and broad powers to carry out that DUTY.

"The Obama administration on Friday lost its bid to halt a lawsuit charging that President George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized warrantless spying on terrorism suspects"

What is it about the case you cite Node that you don't understand? The Justice Department went to Judges to get a warrant. There was no issue of a "warrantless search" involved. Judges may disagree about legal aspects of a case. That's the reason we are treated to split decisions in appeals courts...all the way up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States.

The proposed law does away with the general requirements to get a warrant to search the personal files of ALL Internet users regardless of whether or not they're suspected of illegal activity. This proposed law has the effect of declaring that ALL Internet users are actual or potential criminals. What is it about that you don't understand?

posted April 10, 2009 07:03 PM         

We wouldn't have defense attorneys if none were necessary, now would we? It's inconceivable that a defense attorney would not make a case for his/her client's innocence. It's as plain and simple as that. No further elaboration should be necessary for an issue as simple as this. If you can't understand that, then maybe you don't belong discussing matters of law.

posted April 10, 2009 08:11 PM         

The burden of proof in a criminal case rests solely on the prosecution who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed the illegal act they are charged with. The defendant is presumed innocent and doesn't have to prove a damned thing...unless as a defense, the defendant claims some special circumstance which would absolve him/her of guilt.

One of those special circumstances would be an "insanity plea". In that case, the defendant would be required to show...by a showing of evidence he/she is insane and not responsible for his/her actions.

Another special circumstance would be a claim of "diminished capacity" at the time the crime was committed. Again, this would require a showing of evidence on the part of the defendant.

In these cases the defendant is not disputing they did the crime. They are alleging they are not legally responsible in having done so.

In all types of "Not Guilty" pleas, the prosecution has the sole burden of proof to prove the defendant did what is being alleged to have been done...beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of Proof
The prosecution has the burden to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he/she is not guilty. Juries must presume that the defendant is not guilty until such jurors are convinced from the evidence that the defendant is guilty. If a juror has a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the prosecution, such juror must find the defendant not guilty. If a juror has no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the prosecution, such juror should find the defendant guilty.
http://www.coffeycountyks.org/serv_att6.html

Gee, calling terrorists ballsy for killing unarmed civilians IS glorifying them.

posted April 10, 2009 09:13 PM         

One service, beyond the hilarity of your often intoned No ONE, and I repeat No one has proved me wrong I have issued challenges challenges I say!!! And no one has proven me wrong.

Opinions are just that, and if they were presented as such. Much of Lindaland is very open minded. This is an astrology site after all.

posted April 11, 2009 11:37 AM         

As is usual with you Node, you avoid the main issue, the core issue with off point comments. Comments such as your latest attempt to steer the focus of this thread away from the intrusive bill authorizing warrantless searches by government snoops traipsing through the personal files of all Internet users without any probable cause. The example you cite of Bush complicity was a case where the Justice Department actually went to judges to get an actual warrant. Off point.

Did you come up with "a broken clock is right twice a day" all by yourself?

If I were characterizing your posting style I would say.."Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while". I know that's a true statement and I'm prepared to wait for you to get aroundtoit.

posted April 14, 2009 10:37 AM         

Having seen the prosecutors own words regarding the law as it relates to criminal defendants and their presumption of innocence before criminal courts and juries, you still persist in your foolishness.

You have no understanding of the meaning of affirmative prosecution, burden of proof required by the prosecution and don't understand that the defense in almost every case consists of poking holes in the prosecution's case by cross examining prosecution witnesses, experts and evidence to impeach their testimony...in order to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of jurors.

As for the rest of your foolishness acoustic; you should be damned glad I'm somewhat lazy. I said this to another Leo member on a different site in 2000.

"Hello XX, glad to share the Leo universe with you where all things are possible though it naturally follows that some things are not worth the bother."

posted April 14, 2009 01:48 PM         

kats right, they can listen on cel phone conversations and use them for tracking, more accurate than on-star and guess what, it is a free service

you go big (brother) government.

i know because i checked and my phone has the device. it is located in your sim card if you dont believe me disassemble it and see for yourself.

posted April 14, 2009 04:25 PM         

The report linked people holding conservative views on immigration, abortion, the U.N., the New World Order, etc., to dangerous and violent "militias" that Missouri law enforcement were instructed to be on guard against. Conservative opinions were demonized and made the subject of law enforcement scrutiny.

The report was leaked. National and state public reaction was strong and negative, and Missouri retracted the report and apologized.

This victory was short lived. The substance of the report is back, this time distributed to "federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials ..." by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an "assessment" dated April 7, 2009, entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

The entire assessment is available at the Roger Hedgecock website.

The assessment states it was "prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment
Threat Analysis Division" and "coordinated with the FBI."

It admits that "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." Nonetheless, it states that "right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about ... the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American President ..."

The report elaborates that ..."right wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms and use."

So, if you disagree with Obama on amnesty for illegals or stand up for the Second Amendment, you are branded a "rightwing extremist" by the Department of Homeland Security and become the subject of scrutiny by some 850,000 local and state law enforcement personnel.

The assessment goes on to link concerns about the economy, and the stockpiling of emergency food supplies and weapons and ammunition to violent militias and extremist "rightwing" groups. In my state of California, the state government urges all citizens to keep emergency food supplies in case of earthquake. And who isn't concerned about the economy?

Most disgusting of all, it targets veterans for increased law enforcement scrutiny.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

What's the evidence for this? None. The assessment admits that membership in "rightwing extremist" groups is in decline and asserts that no increase in such violence has been detected. But it might happen. So "intense scrutiny" is advised as the "DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next few months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise of rightwing extremist activity in the United States ..."

This report smacks of profiling and harassing American citizens based on their political views, and specifically based on their opposition to the Obama administration's proposals.

posted April 14, 2009 06:08 PM         

If you're the defense in a case where your client's alibi is unimpeachable (so to speak), you mean to tell me that you wouldn't present your client's overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the prosecution's evidence? That's what you've been advocating. There couldn't be a more foolish position quite frankly. Tactically, it's stupid.

It's still astounding that you understand something this simple.

posted April 14, 2009 06:39 PM         

There is almost no unimpeachable evidence....including eye witness testimony.

The name of the defense game is creating reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

The defense game does not consist of "proving the innocence of the accused".

I didn't have to put in any work in the here and now to know what I just told you acoustic. MOST wide awake citizens of the US have known criminal defendants don't have to prove their innocence since they were teenagers.

Another category of professions you should never attempt...along with any kind of Analyst profession..."Defense Attorney".

quote:

---

i live in a broadly pacifist, affluent neighbourhood which happens to have spawned the kid who went to afghanistan and fell in with the taliban. for which ALL residents of this area were labelled by our former president as "misguided"...katatonic

---

Is this another bit of information that came to you through osmosis katatonic...or do you have an "actual quote" in context from the mouth of Bush?

posted April 14, 2009 07:54 PM         

quote:

---

You started this by claiming that you don't have to DO anything. So now that you've figured out that the Defense side of a legal dispute is required to DO something,...acoustic

---

I didn't say the defense..defendant doesn't have to DO anything.

posted April 14, 2009 09:08 PM         

"Bush Sr. apologizes to northern California for calling John Walker Lindh "some misguided XXXXX County hot-tubber."

posted April 15, 2009 12:48 PM         

While you might like to see a judicial system where defendants are required to "prove their innocence", that kind of jurisprudence doesn't exist in the US and never did exist. Neither in English Common Law from which much of the US jurisprudence was derived.