From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:55:32 GMT

>From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
>Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
>Message-ID: <33rnkq.adamsr@netcom.com>
>Date: 8 Sep 92 21:54:32 GMT

>		REALITY I:
>	Polygamy in the Mormon faith: Banned.
>	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.
>	Satanic worship: Subjects the participants to potential sanctions
>			 by the child protective services even if no laws
>			 are violated.
>	Religious influence on political structures: See the Republican
>			 			     Platform.
>	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
>		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
>		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.
>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.

From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
Date: 18 Oct 91 23:14:35 GMT

The DEA is known to harass 'pro-drug' magazines such as High Times.  The
practice of confiscating computers on which a document was stored violates
this.  Numerous state college speech codes (now starting to be struck down,
thankfully) violate this.  

The KKK and other unpopular groups are often denied permits to hold rallies
because the opposition threatens to stir up trouble.  The whole idea of permits
for assembly is dangerously close to prior restraint on this right.

>		AMENDMENT II:
>	A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed.
>
>		REALITY II:
>	This right exists.

The Supreme Court denies certiori on 2nd amendment cases, and the Appeals
Courts simply ignore the right.  The legislatures have gotten the message
that any infringement on the RKBA goes.

>		AMENDMENT III:
>	No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
>without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
>prescribed by law.
>
>		REALITY III:
>	Emminent domain laws permit the Government to seize your property
>and use it for any purpose they wish. They may not quarter soldiers in you
>home WITH you, but they MAY evict you THEN quarter them.
>
>		AMENDMENT IV:
>	The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
>be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
>by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
>searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>
>		REALITY IV:
>	Possession of greater than $1000 in cash is sufficient grounds to
>seize your money, being black is sufficient justification to stop someone
>who is driving and search their car, an anonymous and unsubstantiated tip is
>sufficient grounds to seize someone's home. Warrants are not needed and the
>bruden of proof is on the individual not the government. Under the WoD
>mentality, this Amendment has effectively ceased to exist.

Doesn't apply in a car.  Doesn't apply to papers (ask the IRS!).  The
exclusionary rule is being carved up, and other remedies are made impossible.

The drug war has spawned lots of warrants to search an entire house or
apartment building for any illegal drugs, based on the tip of an anonymous
informant of unproven reliability (who may or may not exist).  If the informant
is proven to be nonexistant, 'good faith' protects any 'evidence' from
exclusion, and other remedies are made impossible by sovereign immunity and
laws shielding the police from lawsuits.  
 
>		AMENDMENT V:
>	No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
>infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury,
>except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when
>in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
>subject fot the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
>nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
>nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
>nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
>compensation.
>
>		REALITY V:
>	As in the previous case, the WoD with its seizures (with the
>property going to the government WITHOUT just compensation OR due process),
>as well as compulsory drug testing which violates the privacy rights of the
>individual, if not the actual self-incrimination portions of the Amendment
>render this one equally void.

Attorneys General have started using a tactic where they sue a mail-order
company or its officers for some violation in EVERY STATE they mailed in--
this circumvents double jeopardy quite nicely, and makes defense impossible.

Various forms of entrapment, where the government supplies someone with
drugs, buys the drugs from them, and arrests them, are not uncommon. 

Civil forfeiture means that the government can take away your property and
YOU have to sue THEM to get it back.  The burden of proof is on you and you
have to pay all incidental expenses.  The lack of a speedy trial leads to
those accused of crimes to be held for long periods of time-- unless they
agree to plead guilty, in which case they can go home the day of arrest.
No-knock warrants mean homeowners attempting to defend their home against
invaders armed and with battering rams, wearing masks, get shot by the police.

Where 'just compensation' is what the government says it is.  Or, it can
declare property contraband and just take it.

>		AMENDMENT VI:
>	In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
>speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
>wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
>previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
>the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
>compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
>assistance of counsel for his defense.
>
>		REALITY VI:
>	Overworked and understaffed public defenders make a mockery of the
>"assistance of counsel" clause as they make deals to expidite the process
>rather than work for their client's defense. The Seizure laws violate the
>clauses dealing with the right to confront witnesses (the state is not even
>required to IDENTIFY the witnesses let alone produce them), the burden of
>proof is on the individual to prove innocence rather than the state to
>prove guilt, and the state has no obligation to provide counsel even if they
>have seized all the assets of the individual. This one, too, is a thing of
>the past.

Trials aren't speedy.

Jury trials are not necessary in crimes with a penalty of less than 6 months
in prison.  The juries are not impartial, as anyone who might object to the
law, or believe that the judge's instructions are not gospel, is eliminated.

MD v. Craig eliminated the right to confront witnesses in child abuse cases,
and laid the foundation for the elimination of that right in rape cases.

But you only get counsel for the inital trial, and the validity of
counsel who work for the government which is prosecuting you is in question.

>		AMENDMENT VII:
>	In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
>twenty dolars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
>tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United
>States than according to the rules of common law.
>
>		REALITY VII:
>	Still effectively exists.
>
>		AMENDMENT VIII:
>	Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
>nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>
>		REALITY VIII:
>	In MI, simple possession of over a given quantity of a controlled
>substance REQUIRES a manditory sentence of life WITHOUT PAROLE. There is no
>lattitude for the judge, a homeless teenager carrying a package the contents
>of which he or she does not know is as subject to the punishment as is a
>crime boss who has ordered dozens of deaths to protect his or her territory.
>Forfeiture laws impose enormous "fines" on minor offenders (an individual in
>CA driving a $15K automobile and possessing  single marijuana seed faces
>criminal penalties of a $100 fine yet their automobile may be seized and
>sold. Other even more unjust examples are rampant. This Amendment, as well,
>was nulified by the WoD.

I hear about excessive bail ($50,000 or more, in drug cases-- clearly, there
is no way an INNOCENT defendant could raise that kind of bail, nor purchase
a $5000 bond) a lot.

>		AMENDMENT IX:
>	The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
>		REALITY IX:
>	Debatable, given current political trends. No clear demonstration as
>to whether this Amendment does or does not remain valid exists.

The Supreme Court denies and disparages them all the time-- and denies and
disparages the ones enumerated, too.

>		AMENDMENT X:
>	The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
>nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively,
>or to the people.
>
>		REALITY X:
>	The Federal government routinely demands that the states enforce
>laws which the states do not choose to pass. Example: before it could enter
>the union (despite meeting the criteria of the Constitition) Utah was forced
>to pass laws against polygamy - in violation of the religious rights of the
>majority religion. States which decriminalize or legalize marijuana still
>are forced to enforce federal statutes concerning the substance. Many other
>examples exist. This Amendment is _partly_ in effect.

The Supreme Court interprets the interstate commerce clause to apply to
anything, circumventing this amendment.


[ end of quotes from Matthew - sorry if they're unclear, it is because
of my editing them to fit the format of the article ]

Here's another status report:

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: dave@sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Subject: 1990 status report on US Bill of Rights
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1991 23:55:25 GMT

In 1990, Eric Postpischil put in a great effort compiling a status report 
on the US Bill of Rights.  The following works best with a printer using
12 pointsize font:











    Bill of Rights Status Report






    Eric Postpischil

    6 Hamlett Drive, Apt. 17, Nashua, NH 03062

    edp@jareth.enet.dec.com



    4 October 1990



    Permission is granted to copy this article and to convert it as
    needed for copying and/or transmission in other forms of media,
    including radio, television, computer mail, and print.

    I would like to thank the numerous people who enter reports on
    Usenet and the dozens who provided me with information.  Without
    their efforts, I would not have had the volume of information
    that made this article possible.

 



                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



                              Introduction

    How many rights do you have? You should check, because it might
    not be as many today as it was a few years ago, or even a few
    months ago. Some people are not concerned that police will
    execute a search warrant without knocking or that they set up
    roadblocks to stop and interrogate innocent citizens. They do
    not regard these as great infringements on their rights. But
    when you put current events together, there is information that
    may be surprising to people who have not yet been concerned: The
    amount of the Bill of Rights that is under attack is alarming.

    15 December 1991 will be the two-hundredth anniversary of the
    ratification of the Bill of Rights. How has it stood up over two
    hundred years? Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and see
    which aspects are being pushed on or threatened. The point here
    is not the degree of each attack or its rightness or wrongness,
    but the sheer number of rights that are under attack.

                               Amendment I

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of re-
       ligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridg-
       ing the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
       of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
       Government for a redress of grievances.

    Establishing religion: While campaigning for his first term,
    George Bush said "I don't know that atheists should be consid-
    ered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."[1]
    Bush has not retracted, commented on, or clarified this state-
    ment, in spite of requests to do so. According to Bush, this
    is one nation under God. And apparently if you are not within
    Bush's religious beliefs, you are not a citizen. Federal, state,
    and local governments promote a particular religion (or, occa-
    sionally, religions) by spending public money on religious dis-
    plays. Governments also establish religion via blue laws, which
    ___________________

  [1] "Bush on Atheism," Free Inquiry 8, no.  4 (Fall 1988):  16.

                                                                   1

 


    Bill of Rights Status Report



    set Sunday as a special day on which business is prohibited or
    limited.

    Free exercise of religion: Robert Newmeyer and Glenn Braunstein
    were jailed in 1988 for refusing to stand in respect for a
    judge.[2] Braunstein says the tradition of rising in court
    started decades ago when judges entered carrying Bibles. Since
    judges no longer carry Bibles, Braunstein says there is no
    reason to stand - and his Bible tells him to honor no other
    God. For this religious practice, Newmeyer and Braunstein were
    jailed and are now suing.

    Free exercise of religion: On 17 April 1990, the Supreme Court
    ruled that Native Americans do not have a Constitutional right
    to use peyote during their religious ceremonies. Peyote is a
    mild hallucinogen derived from cactus plants. It is also, to
    members of the Native American Church, an essential sacrament,
    the physical embodiment of the Great Spirit. During the Prohibi-
    tion, the Federal government permitted the Roman Catholic Church
    to use sacramental wine at masses, but Native Americans are not
    receiving equal treatment now. In the majority opinion, Justice
    Antonin Scalia admitted the decision would place minority reli-
    gious practices at a disadvantage. The Supreme Court decision
    is so generally opposed that three weeks after the decision,
    a petition for rehearing was filed jointly by American Jewish
    Congress, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, National
    Council of Churches, National Association of Evangelicals, Peo-
    ple for the American Way, Presbyterian Church USA, American
    Civil Liberties Union, Christian Legal Society, American Jewish
    Committee, Unitarian-Universalist Association, General Confer-
    ence of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Worldwide Church of




    ___________________

  [2] Steve Green, "Courtroom Respect Case Goes to Trial," United
      Press International (UPI) (circa 9 August 1990).

                                                                   2


                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    God, Missouri Synod of Lutheran Church, and Americans United for
    Separation of Church and State.[3][,][4]

    Free speech: Technology has given the government an excuse to
    interfere with free speech. Claiming that radio frequencies are
    a limited resource, the government tells broadcasters what to
    say (such as news and public and local service programming) and
    what not to say. This includes prohibitions on obscenity, as
    defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC
    is investigating Boston PBS station WGBH-TV for broadcasting
    photographs from the Mapplethorpe exhibit. Also, a broadcaster
    that supported legalization of drugs would be in danger of
    violating FCC rules.

    Free speech: There are also laws to limit political statements
    and contributions to political activities. In 1985, the Michi-
    gan Chamber of Commerce wanted to take out an advertisement
    supporting a candidate in the state house of representatives.
    But a 1976 Michigan law prohibits a corporation from using its
    general treasury funds to make independent expenditures in a
    political campaign. In March 1990, the Supreme Court upheld that
    law. According to dissenting Justice Kennedy, it is now a felony
    in Michigan for the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties
    Union, or the Chamber of Commerce to advise the public how a
    candidate voted on issues of urgent concern to their members.[5]

    Free press: In an apparently unprecedented order, New York
    Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Dontzin issued an order for
    prior restraint against the publication of a book by a former
    member of Mossad, an Israeli intelligence service. Further,
    Dontzin issued this order with only scant information about the
    ___________________

  [3] Rob Boston, "The Day 'Sherbert' Melted," Church and State 43,
      no.  6 (June 1990):  4-6.

  [4] Steve Moore, "Supreme Court Deals Devastating Blow to Native 
	American Church," Native American Rights Fund Legal Review 
	(Spring 1990).

  [5] Michael Gartner, "If Corporations Are Silenced in Political
      Debate, Who's Next?", Wall Street Journal, 5 April 1990, sec.
      A, 19.

                                                                   3

 


    Bill of Rights Status Report



    alleged menace represented by the book. The justice made the
    ruling based upon lawyers' descriptions of material in a sealed
    affidavit in Ontario, Canada - material the justice had not
    seen.[6]

    Free press: The equipment Craig Neidorf used to publish Phrack,
    a worldwide electronic magazine about phones and hacking, was
    confiscated after Neidorf published a three-page document copied
    from a Bell South computer and entitled "A Bell South Standard
    Practice (BSP) 660-225-104SV Control Office Administration of
    Enhanced 911 Services for Special Services and Major Account
    Centers, March, 1988."[7] All of the information in this doc-
    ument was publicly available in other documents and could be
    ordered by calling a toll-free 800 number.[8] The government has
    not alleged that Neidorf was involved with or participated in
    the copying of the document, only that he published it.[9] The
    person who copied this document from telephone company comput-
    ers also placed a copy on a bulletin board run by Rich Andrews.
    Andrews forwarded a copy to AT&T officials and cooperated with
    authorities fully. In return, the Secret Service (SS) confis-
    cated Andrews' computer along with all the mail and data that
    were on it. Andrews was not charged with any crime.[10]


    ___________________

  [6] Roger Cohen, "Judge Halts Publication of Book by Ex-Israeli
      Intelligence Agent," New York Times, 13 September 1990, sec.
      A, 1, and sec.  C, 24.

  [7] John Perry Barlow, "Crime and Puzzlement," Whole Earth Review
      68 (Fall 1990):  44-57.

  [8] Jef Poskanzer of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), computer
      mail to author, 17 September 1990.  EFF provided litigation sup-
      port to Neidorf.

  [9] "Legal Case Summary," Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10 July 1990.

 [10] Barlow.

                                                                    4



                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    Free press: On 1 March 1990 the SS ransacked the offices of
    Steve Jackson Games (SJG); irreparably damaged property; and
    confiscated three computers, two laser printers, several hard
    disks, and many boxes of paper and floppy disks. The target of
    the SS operation was to seize all copies of a game of fiction
    called GURPS Cyberpunk. The Cyberpunk game contains fictitious
    break-ins in a futuristic world, with no technical information
    of actual use with real computers, nor is it played on com-
    puters. The SS never filed any charges against SJG but still
    refused to return confiscated property.[11]

    Peaceable assembly: The right to assemble peaceably is no longer
    free - you have to get a permit. Even that is not enough; some
    officials have to be sued before they realize their reasons for
    denying a permit are not Constitutional.

    Peaceable assembly: In Alexandria, Virginia, there is a law
    that prohibits people from loitering for more than seven minutes
    and exchanging small objects. Punishment is two years in jail.
    Consider the scene in jail: "What'd you do?" "I was waiting at a
    bus stop and gave a guy a cigarette." This is not an impossible
    occurrence: In Pittsburgh, Eugene Tyler, 15, has been ordered
    away from bus stops by police officers.[12] Sherman Jones, also
    15, was accosted with a police officer's hands around his neck
    after putting the last bit of pizza crust into his mouth. The
    police suspected him of hiding drugs.[13]

    Petition for redress of grievances: Rounding out the attacks
    on the first amendment, there is a sword hanging over the right
    to petition for redress of grievances. House Resolution 4079,
    the National Drug and Crime Emergency Act, tries to modify the
    right to habeas corpus. It sets time limits on the right of
    people in custody to petition for redress and also limits the

    ___________________

 [11] Ibid.

 [12] Dan Donovan and Ellen Perlmutter, "Teens Say Drug Tactics
      Hassle the Innocent," Pittsburgh Press, 10 July 1990.

 [13] Ibid.

                                                                   5



    Bill of Rights Status Report



    courts in which such an appeal may be heard.[14] And on 5 March
    1990, the Supreme Court limited the ability of state prison
    inmates to obtain Federal court review of their convictions and
    sentences. By ruling that prisoners cannot make appeals based
    on favorable court rulings issued in other cases since their
    own convictions, the Supreme Court permitted states to execute
    people even though their death sentences would not be permitted
    today in light of subsequent rulings.[15] If a state imposed
    a death sentence in "good faith," but it turns out the state
    was mistaken, the Supreme Court has given the okay to refusing
    to hear the prisoner's petition for redress of grievances. The
    defendant will be killed even though the state made a mistake.

                              Amendment II

       A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
       a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
       shall not be infringed.

    Right to bear arms: This amendment is so commonly challenged
    that the movement has its own name: gun control. Legislation
    banning various types of weapons is supported with the claim
    that the weapons are not for "legitimate" sporting purposes.
    This is a perversion of the right to bear arms for two reasons.
    First, the basis of freedom is not that permission to do le-
    gitimate things is granted to the people, but rather that the
    government is empowered to do a limited number of legitimate
    things - everything else people are free to do; they do not
    need to justify their choices. Second, the purpose of the sec-
    ond amendment is not to provide arms for sporting purposes. The
    right to bear arms is the last line of defense of our rights.
    In case there is an emergency, in case the people running the

    ___________________

 [14] House of Representatives, House Resolution 4079, 101st
      Congress, 2d session, 1990, 37-43

 [15] Linda Greenhouse, "Justices Limit Path to US Courts for State Pris-
      oners on Death Row," New York Times, 6 March 1990, sec.  A, 1 and
      20.

								     6



                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    government get out of control, guns in the hands of the people -
    all the people - are the last chance to defend our freedom.

    Some people contend the second amendment forbids Congress to
    prohibit the maintenance of a state militia. If so, this amend-
    ment is threatened by an incident described below, at the tenth
    amendment, in which the Federal government took control of the
    state militias.

    Firearms regulations also empower local officials, such as po-
    lice chiefs, to grant or deny permits. This gives local offi-
    cials power to grant permits only to friends of people in the
    right places or to deny permits on sexist or racist bases -
    such as denying women the right to carry a weapon needed for
    self-defense.

                              Amendment III

       No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
       without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in
       a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Quartering soldiers: This amendment is fairly clean so far, but
    it is not entirely safe. In July and August of 1990, 200 troops
    in camouflage dress with M-16s and helicopters swept through
    King Range National Conservation Area in Humboldt County, Cal-
    ifornia, in a militarized attack involving the California Na-
    tional Guard, the Army, and seven other federal agencies.[16]
    In the process of searching for marijuana plants, soldiers
    assaulted people with M-16s, trespassed on private land, and
    destroyed private property, including a fire-protection spring


    ___________________

 [16] Eric Brazil, "Troops Raid Humboldt Pot Farms," San Francisco
      Examiner, 31 July 1990, sec.  A, 1 and 16.

                                                                   7


    Bill of Rights Status Report


    box and watering system (thinking it might be used to irri-
    gate marijuana plants) the day before a major fire in Petrolia,
    California.[17][,][18][,][19]

                              Amendment IV

       The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
       houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
       and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
       issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirma-
       tion, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
       and the persons or things to be seized.

    Right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects
    against unreasonable searches and seizures: The RICO law is
    making a mockery of the right to be secure from seizure. Entire
    stores of books or videotapes have been confiscated based upon
    the presence of some sexually explicit items. Bars, restaurants,
    or houses are taken from the owners because employees or tenants
    sold drugs. In Volusia County, Florida, Sheriff Robert Vogel
    and his officers stop automobiles for contrived violations. If
    large amounts of cash are found, the police confiscate it on the
    presumption that it is drug money - even if there are no drugs
    or other evidence of a crime and no charges are filed against
    the car's occupants.[20][,][21] The victims can get their money
    back only if they prove the money was obtained legally. One
    couple got their money back by proving it was an insurance

    ___________________

 [17] Rick DelVecchio, "US Marijuana Busters Find 'Good Quantities',"
      San Francisco Chronicle, 1 August 1990, sec.  A, 1f.

 [18] DelVecchio, "Humboldt Man Talks About Close Encounters," San Fran-
      cisco Chronicle, 2 August 1990, sec.  A, 2.

 [19] Ronald M. Sinoway, "Nationwide Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against
      Operation Green Sweep," Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, 9 Au-
      gust 1990.

 [20] Jacob Sullum, "Little Big Brothers," Trends, Reason 21, no.
      10 (March 1990):  14.

 [21] 20/20, American Broadcasting Companies, January 1990.

                                                                     8

 


                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    settlement. Two other men who tried to get their two thousand
    dollars back were denied by the Florida courts.

    Right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects
    against unreasonable searches and seizures: A new law goes into
    effect in Oklahoma on 1 January 1991. All property, real and
    personal, is taxable, and citizens are required to list all
    their personal property for tax assessors, including household
    furniture, gold and silver plate, musical instruments, watches,
    jewelry, and personal, private, or professional libraries. If a
    citizen refuses to list their property or is suspected of not
    listing something, the law directs the assessor to visit and
    enter the premises, getting a search warrant if necessary.[22]
    Being required to tell the state everything you own is not being
    secure in one's home and effects.

    No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
    by oath or affirmation: As a supporting oath or affirmation,
    reports of anonymous informants are accepted. This practice has
    been condoned by the Supreme Court.

    Particularly describing the place to be searched and persons
    or things to be seized: Today's warrants do not particularly
    describe the things to be seized - they list things that might
    be present. For example, if police are making a drug raid, they
    will list weapons as things to be searched for and seized.
    This is done not because the police know of any weapons and
    can particularly describe them, but because they allege people
    with drugs often have weapons.

    The two items immediately above both apply to the warrant the
    Hudson, New Hampshire, police used when they broke down Bruce
    Lavoie's door at 5 a.m. with guns drawn and shot and killed him.
    The warrant claimed information from an anonymous informant,
    and it said, among other things, that any guns found were to be

    ___________________

 [22] Don Bell, "Supreme Court Dictatorship in America," The CDL Re-
      port 129 (June 1990), quoting the text of the bill as printed
      in The Christian World Report, 16 May 1989.

                                                                   9



    Bill of Rights Status Report



    seized.[23] Although Bruce Lavoie had no guns and there was no
    reason to suspect he did, the mention of guns in the warrant was
    used as reason to enter with guns drawn. Bruce Lavoie was not
    secure from unreasonable search and seizure.

    Other infringements on the fourth amendment include roadblocks
    and the Boston Police detention and deliberate harassment of
    known gang members.[24] Gang membership is known by such things
    as skin color and clothing color. And in Pittsburgh again, Eu-
    gene Tyler was once searched because he was wearing sweat pants
    and a plaid shirt - police told him they heard many drug dealers
    at that time were wearing sweat pants and plaid shirts.[25]

                               Amendment V

       No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
       infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of
       a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
       forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
       of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
       to the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
       limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
       witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,
       or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
       property be taken for public use without just compensation.

    Indictment of a grand jury: Kevin Bjornson has been proprietor
    of Hydro-Tech for nearly a decade and is a leading author-
    ity on hydroponic technology and cultivation. On 26 October
    1989, both locations of Hydro-Tech were raided by the Drug
    Enforcement Administration. National Drug Control Policy Di-
    rector William Bennett has declared that some indoor lighting

    ___________________

 [23] Hudson Police Shooting, Investigation report case I-89-220,
      Concord:  New Hampshire State Police, 13 August 1989, 243.

 [24] Jerry Thomas, "Police Sweep of Gangs Deemed a Success," Boston
      Globe, 21 May 1989, 40.

 [25] Donovan and Perlmutter.

                                                                  10


                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    and hydroponic equipment is purchased by marijuana growers,
    so retailers and wholesalers of such equipment are drug prof-
    iteers and co-conspirators. Bjornson was not charged with any
    crime, nor subpoenaed, issued a warrant, or arrested. No illegal
    substances were found on his premises. Federal officials were
    unable to convince grand juries to indict Bjornson. By February,
    they had called scores of witnesses and recalled many two or
    three times, but none of the grand juries they convened decided
    there was reason to criminally prosecute Bjornson. In spite of
    that, as of March 1990, his bank accounts were still frozen and
    none of the inventories or records had been returned.[26] Grand
    juries refused to indict Bjornson, but the government is still
    penalizing him.

    Twice put in jeopardy of life or limb: Raymond Buckey was put
    on trial a second time for child molesting in the McMartin
    Preschool case, after a first trial lasting three years ac-
    quitted him of 40 charges but deadlocked on 13 other counts.[27]
    Anthony Barnaby was tried for the same murder three times before
    New Hampshire released him,[28] even though there was virtually
    no physical evidence linking him to the scene of the crime.[29]
    These were mistrials rather than not-guilty verdicts, but they
    were not mistrials caused by accident (such as a juror falling
    ill) or incorrect procedure (such as misconduct by a prosecu-
    tor). The facts here are that the prosecutors did not convince
    the juries that the defendants were guilty, yet the defendants
    were tried over and over again, sapping them in finances and
    in years from their lives. The trying and retrying of a person

    ___________________

 [26] Amy Swanson, "Libertarian Activist in Northwest Victim of
      Bennett's Drug War," Libertarian Party News 5, no.  3 (March
      1990).

 [27] "2d Trial Opens in Preschool Molestation Case," New York
      Times, 8 May 1990, sec.  A, 13.

 [28] Pendleton Beach, "Barnaby 'Ecstatic' at Release," Nashua Telegraph,
      11 July 1990, 1.

 [29] Carolyn Magnuson, "Caplin Shadows Barnaby Trial," Nashua Telegraph,
      8 October 1989, sec.  A, 1 and 4.

                                                                  11


    Bill of Rights Status Report



    becomes an abuse that threatens the right to continue with one's
    life after having withstood the jeopardy to life or limb.

    Compelled to be a witness against himself: Oliver North was
    forced to testify against himself. Congress granted him immunity
    from having anything he said to them being used as evidence
    against him, and then they required him to talk. After he did
    so, what he said was used to develop other evidence which was
    used against him.[30]

    Compelled to be a witness against himself: In the New York
    Central Park assault case, three people were found guilty of
    assault. But there was no physical evidence linking them to
    the crime; hair, clothing, and semen did not match any of the
    defendants.[31][,][32] The only evidence the state had was con-
    fessions. To obtain these confessions, the police questioned
    15-year-old Yusef Salaam without a parent present - which is
    illegal under New York state law.[33] Police also refused to
    let the subject's Big Brother, an assistant United States at-
    torney, see him during questioning. Police screamed "You better
    tell us what we want to hear and cooperate or you are going to
    jail," at 14-year-old Antron McCray, according to Bobby McCray,

    ___________________

 [30] "Say Goodnight, Mr.  Walsh," Review & Outlook, Wall Street
      Journal, 10 September 1990, sec.  A, 14.

 [31] Ronald Sullivan, "Scientific Link is Still Missing in Jogger
      Trial," New York Times, 20 July 1990, sec.  B, 1 and 5.

 [32] Sullivan, "Defense Asks, Was Jogger Really Raped?", New York Times,
      8 August 1990, sec.  B, 1 and 3.

 [33] Sullivan, "Police Ignored Warnings on Age of Jogger Suspect, Wit-
      nesses Say," New York Times, 31 July 1990, sec.  B, 3.

 [34] Peg Byron, "Father Says He Told Son to Lie After Police Lied to
      Him," UPI (circa 30 July 1990).

 [35] Sullivan, "Youth's Father Says He Urged Park-Rape Lie," New York
      Times, 28 July 1990, 23 and 26.

                                                                    12



                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    his father. Antron McCray "confessed" after his father told
    him to, because the police said they would release him if he
    confessed.[34][,][35] These people were coerced into bearing
    witness against themselves, and those confessions were used to
    convict them.

    Compelled to be a witness against himself: Your answers to Cen-
    sus questions are required by law, with a $100 penalty for each
    question not answered. But people have been evicted for giv-
    ing honest Census answers. According to the General Accounting
    Office, one of the most frequent ways city governments use cen-
    sus information is to detect illegal two-family dwellings. This
    has happened in Montgomery County, Maryland; Pullman, Washing-
    ton; and Long Island, New York. In this and other ways, Census
    answers are used against the answerers.[36]

    Compelled to be a witness against himself: The government is
    requiring drug tests from more and more people, even when there
    is no probable cause, no accident, and no suspicion of drug
    use. Requiring people to take drug tests compels them to provide
    evidence against themselves.

    Deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
    of law: This clause is violated on each of the items life,
    liberty, and property. Incidents including such violations
    are described elsewhere in this article. Here are two more:
    On 26 March 1987, in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, Jeffrey Miles
    was killed by police officer John Rucker, who was looking for a
    suspected drug dealer. Rucker had been sent to the wrong house;
    Miles was not wanted by police.[37] He received no due process.


    ___________________

 [36] James Bovard, "Honesty May Not Be Your Best Census Policy,"
      Wall Street Journal, 8 August 1989, sec.  A, 10.

 [37] John Dentinger, "Narc, Narc," Playboy 37, no.  4 (April 1990):
      49-50.

 [38] Sullum.

                                                                  13

 

    Bill of Rights Status Report



    In Detroit, $4,834 was seized from a grocery store after dogs
    detected traces of cocaine on three one-dollar bills in a cash
    register.[38]

    Private property taken for public use without just compensation:
    RICO is shredding this aspect of the Bill of Rights. The money
    confiscated by Sheriff Vogel goes directly into Vogel's budget.
    Federal and local governments seize and auction cars and boats.
    Vehicles are seized even if the owners are not present or re-
    sponsible for the presence of drugs (as in the case of chartered
    vehicles). One car was seized because an inspector believed the
    smell of marijuana was in it.[39] Under RICO, the government is
    seizing property without due process. The victims are required
    to prove not only that they are not guilty of a crime, but that
    they are entitled to their property. Otherwise, the government
    auctions off the property and keeps the proceeds.

                              Amendment VI

       In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
       right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
       the State and district wherein the crime shall have been com-
       mitted, which district shall have been previously ascertained
       by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the ac-
       cusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
       have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor,
       and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

    The right to a speedy and public trial: Surprisingly, the right
    to a public trial is under attack. When Marion Barry was be-
    ing tried, the prosecution attempted to bar Louis Farrakhan
    and George Stallings from the gallery. This request was based
    on an allegation that they would send silent and "impermissi-
    ble messages" to the jurors. The judge initially granted this


    ___________________

 [39] Jon Nordheimer, "Tighter Federal Drug Dragnet Yields Cars,
      Boats and Protests," New York Times, 22 May 1988, sec.  A, 1
      and 16.

                                                                   14



                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    request.[40][,][41] One might argue that the whole point of a
    public trial is to send a message to all the participants: The
    message is that the public is watching; the trial had better be
    fair.

    By an impartial jury: The government does not even honor the
    right to trial by an impartial jury. US District Judge Edward
    Rafeedie is investigating improper influence on jurors by US
    marshals in the Enrique Camarena case. US marshals apparently
    illegally communicated with jurors during deliberations.[42]

    Of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
    committed: Manuel Noriega is being tried so far away from the
    place where he is alleged to have committed crimes that the
    United States had to invade another country and overturn a
    government to get him. Nor is this a unique occurrence; in a
    matter separate from the jury tampering, Judge Rafeedie had
    to dismiss charges against Mexican gynecologist Dr. Humberto
    Alvarez Machain on the grounds that the doctor was illegally
    abducted from his Guadalajara office in April 1990 and turned
    over to US authorities.[43]

    To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation: Steve
    Jackson Games, nearly put out of business by the raid described
    previously, has been stonewalled by the SS. "For the past month
    or so these guys have been insisting the book wasn't the target
    of the raid, but they don't say what the target was, or why
    they were critical of the book, or why they won't give it back,"
    Steve Jackson says. "They have repeatedly denied we're targets
    ___________________

 [40] B. Drummond Ayres, Jr., "Witness in Barry Trial Now Denies
      Exceeding Agents' Instructions," New York Times, 4 July 1990, 10.

 [41] Sandra Sardella, "ACLU Says Farrakhan, Stallings Can Attend Barry
      Trial," UPI (circa 5 July 1990).

 [42] Carol Baker, "Camarena Judge Vows to Get to 'Bottom' of Mis-
      trial Motion," UPI (circa 9 August 1990).

 [43] "US Appeals Order to Return Suspect to Mexico," New York
      Times, 18 August 1990, 9.

                                                                  15

 
    Bill of Rights Status Report



    but don't explain why we've been made victims."[44] Attorneys
    for SJG tried to find out the basis for the search warrant that
    led to the raid on SJG. But the application for that warrant was
    sealed by order of the court and remained sealed at last report,
    in July 1990.[45] Not only has the SS taken property and nearly
    destroyed a publisher, it will not even explain the nature and
    cause of the accusations that led to the raid.

    To be confronted with the witnesses against him: The courts
    are beginning to play fast and loose with the right to confront
    witnesses. Testimony via videotape or one-way television is
    being used for former Presidents and children. Such procedures
    reduce the information a jury receives. First, the lack of the
    physical presence of the witness makes it more difficult for
    the jury to judge the witness' veracity and get an accurate
    impression of what the witness is saying. Second, the cumbersome
    procedures involved reduce the ability for either prosecution or
    defense to cross-examine the witness - a step which is essential
    to bringing out the truth in difficult situations.

    To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses: When John M.
    Poindexter subpoenaed Ronald Reagan as a witness in Poindexter's
    trial, Reagan fought the subpoena.[46] The White House and the
    Justice Department also opposed providing documents in response
    to subpoenas of Oliver North.[47] Without the disputed papers,
    Federal District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell had to dismiss the
    main criminal charges against North.[48] The government said the
    documents were being withheld for reasons of national security.

    ___________________

 [44] "CyberPunk Could Prove End of Steve Jackson Games," UPI (10
      May 1990).

 [45] "Legal Case Summary," Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10 July 1990.

 [46] "Reagan Fighting a Subpoena," New York Times, 3 January 1990,
      sec.  A, 16.

 [47] Philip Shenon, "North Subpoenas Face Fight by White House," New
      York Times, 1 January 1989, 12.

 [48] Michael Wines, "Key North Counts Dismissed by Court," New York 
	Times, 14 January 1989, 1.

                                                                     16

 


                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    Some of the documents had already been made public by release to
    a private institute in another court case. The prosecution knew
    this but still told the court the documents were secret.[49]

    To have the assistance of counsel: Connecticut Judge Joseph
    Sylvester is refusing to assign public defenders to people
    accused of drug-related crimes, including drunk driving.[50]

    To have the assistance of counsel: RICO is also affecting the
    right to have the assistance of counsel. The government confis-
    cates the money of an accused person, which leaves them unable
    to hire attorneys. The IRS has served summonses nationwide to
    defense attorneys around the country, demanding the names of
    clients who paid cash for fees exceeding $10,000.[51]

                              Amendment VII

       In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
       exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
       preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
       reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according
       to the rules of common law.

    Right of trial by jury in suits at common law: There are several
    ways this right can be taken from somebody. If a person is
    not careful about knowing when to ask for a jury trial, the
    government might refuse to grant the right. Under the Federal
    Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to demand a trial by jury in



    ___________________

 [49] David Johnston, "Trial of North Stalled Again; Defense Moves for
      Dismissal," New York Times, 1 March 1989, sec.  A, 1 and 20.

 [50] "Drug Suspects Barred From Public Defenders," New York Times,
      12 July 1990, national edition, sec.  B, 3.

 [51] "IRS Issues Summonses to Defense Lawyers," New York Times, 7
      March 1990, sec.  A, 17.

                                                                  17



    Bill of Rights Status Report



    time constitutes a waiver of the right.[52] The rules courts
    are using allow judges to direct a jury to return a particular
    verdict. Or a judge can decide a verdict is wrong according
    to the evidence, set aside the jury's verdict, and order a new
    trial.[53] In Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Company, the
    Supreme Court decided that in a case where the judge allowed the
    jury to deliberate, the matter could not be changed by directing
    the verdict, because of the seventh amendment, but it was okay
    to declare a mistrial and order a new trial in which the judge
    could direct the jury verdict.[54] This sidesteps the seventh
    amendment and removes the power to decide justice and facts from
    the people of a jury.

                             Amendment VIII

       Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
       imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Excessive bail and fines: Tallahatchie County in Mississippi
    charges ten dollars a day to each person who spends time in the
    jail, regardless of the length of stay or the outcome of their
    trial. This means innocent people are forced to pay. Marvin
    Willis was stuck in jail for 90 days trying to raise $2,500 bail
    on an assault charge. But after he made that bail, he was kept
    imprisoned because he could not pay the $900 rent Tallahatchie
    demanded. Nine former inmates are suing the county for this
    practice.[55]

    ___________________

 [52] Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service, The Con-
      stitution of the United States of America:  Analysis and
      Interpretation, edited by Johnny H. Killian and Leland E.
      Beck, 99th Congress, 1st session, 1987, Senate document 99-16,
      1376.

 [53] Ibid, 1382.

 [54] Ibid.

 [55] "Ex-inmates Take Issue with Jail Cell Fees," Insight (16 April
      1990):  55.

                                                                   18

 


                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    Cruel and unusual punishments: House Resolution 4079 threatens
    this right too: "... a Federal court shall not hold prison
    or jail crowding unconstitutional under the eighth amendment
    except to the extent that an individual plaintiff inmate proves
    that the crowding causes the infliction of cruel and unusual
    punishment of that inmate."[56]

    Cruel and unusual punishments: A life sentence for selling a
    quarter of a gram of cocaine for $20 - that is what Ricky Isom
    was sentenced to in February 1990 in Cobb County, Georgia.
    It was Isom's second conviction in two years, and state law
    imposes a mandatory sentence. Even the judge pronouncing the
    sentence thinks it is cruel; Judge Tom Cauthorn expressed grave
    reservations before sentencing Isom and Douglas Rucks (convicted
    of selling 3.5 grams of cocaine in a separate but similar case).
    Judge Cauthorn called the sentences "Draconian."[57]

                              Amendment IX

       The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
       not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
       people.

    Other rights retained by the people: Other rights retained by
    the people include the right of a citizen to work in or for a
    political party and the right to marital privacy.[58] Those are
    some of the rights the authors of the Constitution were trying
    to protect by telling us in this amendment that the other parts
    of the Constitution were not to be interpreted as a complete
    list, that people have fundamental rights other than those
    explicitly listed, and those rights should not be infringed.
    But still the government tries. The Hatch Act limits political
    activities of people who are employed by the government. Various

    ___________________

 [56] House Resolution 4079, 8-9.

 [57] Mark Curriden, "Man Gets Life for $20 Sale of Cocaine," At-
      lanta Journal, 22 February 1990.

 [58] Constitution:  Analysis and Interpretation, 1412-1413.
                                                                  19



    Bill of Rights Status Report



    states attempt to regulate marital relations. Another right
    considered fundamental is the right to travel, including travel
    abroad across borders in either direction and travel within
    the country.[59] Yet the Federal government limits travel to
    Cuba and other countries, and states establish roadblocks to
    question and examine citizens. And aspects of our private lives
    are increasingly regulated. At home, recreation, and work, laws
    and regulations dictate what the government thinks is good for
    us.

                               Amendment X

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consti-
       tution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
       the States respectively, or to the people.

    Powers reserved to the states or the people: Until 1937, this
    amendment was used to keep Congress within limits in such things
    as regulation of commerce, enforcement of the fourteenth amend-
    ment, and laying and collecting taxes.[60] Today, this protec-
    tion has eroded. The Federal government exercises much power
    through purse strings, by denying money to states that do not
    conform to Federal rules and giving money to states that do. By
    controlling money, the Federal government coerces obedience from
    the states in setting speed limits, defining crimes, and setting
    criminal sentences and penalties. In 1984, Reagan signed a law
    ordering millions of dollars withheld from states not raising
    their drinking age to 21.[61] South Dakota objected to this and
    sued, with support from eight other states.[62] On 23 June 1987,
    the Supreme Court ruled against the states.[63] On the same day,

    ___________________

 [59] Milton R. Konvitz, Bill of Rights Reader:  Leading Constitutional
      Cases, 5th ed.  (New York:  Cornell University Press, 1973):  518.

 [60] Constitution:  Analysis and Interpretation, 1418.

 [61] Steven R. Weisman, "Reagan Signs Law Linking Federal Aid to Drink-
      ing Age," New York Times, 18 July 1984, sec.  A, 15.

 [62] Dick Pawelek, "Resolve Two Federal-State Conflicts," Scholastic
      Update 119, no.  10 (26 January 1987):  21-22.

                                                                     20

 
                                        Bill of Rights Status Report



    the Supreme Court overturned an 1861 decision prohibiting Fed-
    eral courts from ordering states to extradite criminal suspects
    to other states.[64] That power of a state to refuse extradition
    saved a free black person from being extradited in 1861 from
    Ohio to Kentucky to face trial for the crime of helping a slave
    to escape, but the power is now gone.

    Powers reserved to the states or the people: Article I, section
    eight of the Constitution reserves to the states the authority
    of training the militia. In 1986, Minnesota and eleven other
    states refused permission for their National Guard units to be
    sent to Honduras for training missions. A Federal judge denied
    the states this authority.[65]

                                 Summary

    Out of ten amendments, all are under attack. All of the indi-
    vidual parts of each amendment are threatened. Many of them are
    under multiple attacks of different natures. If this much of the
    Bill of Rights is threatened, how can you be sure your rights
    are safe? A right has to be there when you need it. Like insur-
    ance, you cannot afford to wait until you need it and then set
    about procuring it or ensuring it is available. Assurance must
    be made in advance.

    The bottom line here is that your rights are not safe. You do
    not know when one of your rights will be violated. A number
    of rights protect accused persons, and you may think it is not
    important to protect the rights of criminals. But if a right
    is not there for people accused of crimes, it will not be there
    when you need it. With the Bill of Rights in the sad condition
    described above, nobody can be confident they will be able
    to exercise the rights to which they are justly entitled. To
    preserve our rights for ourselves in the future, we must defend
    them for everybody today.

    ___________________

 [63] Stuart Taylor, Jr., "Justices Back Use of Aid to Get States to 
	Raise Drinking Age," New York Times, 24 June 1987, sec.  A, 20.

 [64] Ibid.

 [65] "States Lose Suit on the Guard's Latin Missions," New York
      Times, 5 August 1987, sec.  A, 10.

                                                                  21

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution