VoteKansas.org

Ron Paul 2012 | The Ron Paul campaign condemns the unfortunate activities that took place at the Louisiana Republican State Convention in Shreveport.

Tony Cartalucci | Latest fabrications includes defected "air force officer" with "super human" hearing and sight, and miraculous satellite imaging.

WASHINGTON — The once highly touted Arab Spring has become the Arab Summer — scorching hot, unbearably dry and very brutal and bloody. Last weekend, as Americans prepared to celebrate Memorial Day and commemorated the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, Bashar Assad unleashed tanks, artillery and his Quds force-trained shabiha militia to kill more than 100 Syrian civilians — most of them women and children. Though the atrocities and carnage in Syria continue, little but bluff and bluster is produced by the United Nations and the Obama administration.

In the aftermath of the May 25 massacre, 11 nations — the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and Turkey — expelled Syrian diplomats from their capitals. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — on a visit to Turkey, Syria’s neighbor and former ally — told the Alliance of Civilizations in Istanbul, “The U.N. did not deploy in Syria just to bear witness to the slaughter of innocents. … We are not there to play the role of passive observer to unspeakable atrocities.”

But that’s exactly what the 300 U.N. “observers” in Syria have become in the six weeks since they were deployed in support of Kofi Annan’s so-called Syrian peace plan. Worse, the vicious Assad regime and its principal backers in Russia and Iran know that this is all hollow rhetoric. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — vying for the title of “The Most Traveled U.S. Secretary of State in History” — ought to know it, too.

In Copenhagen, on “a weeklong diplomatic trip to Europe’s capitals,” she said the Obama administration is “committed to preventing a civil war in Syria” and baldly claimed that she is “pushing” the government in Moscow to help: “I have been telling them their policy is going to help contribute to a civil war.” That kind of talk is unlikely to produce a favorable outcome in Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, no matter how many times President Barack Obama pushes the “reset button.”

After 15 months of butchery — and 13,000 dead civilians (the U.N. says it’s 10,000) — it ought to be clear to all that the U.N. can’t “prevent” a civil war in Syria; it already has started. Toothless sanctions, such as last week’s decision by the Obama administration to bar the Syria International Islamic Bank from doing business in the U.S., won’t stop the fighting. And no one, particularly the 22.5 million people living in Syria under the sanguinary Assad regime, should expect any help from Russia or Iran.

Moscow will do all in its power short of war to keep its Mediterranean naval installation at Tartus, Syria, in “friendly” hands. Tehran, striving for regional hegemony while it builds nuclear weapons, must have an ally in Damascus to keep open its supply lines for arms and materiel to Hezbollah — Iran’s proxy for what it repeatedly describes as a coming “fire that will destroy the Zionist regime.”

When asked about a U.N. resolution for military action — like the support given rebels in their effort to oust Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi — Clinton said, “Every day that goes by makes the argument for it stronger.” She knows better. The Russians and the Chinese would veto such action in the U.N. Security Council before it could be written.

That doesn’t mean we don’t have options. To succeed, opponents of the regime in Damascus will have to be armed, trained and equipped. The Free Syrian Army — a rebel group composed primarily of Syrian military defectors — is headquartered in Turkey. The FSA could not be there without quiet approval from the government in Ankara. Next door in Baghdad, there is deep concern about the flood of Syrians seeking refuge in northwestern Iraq. It is in the interests of both the Erdogan and al-Maliki governments — and our own — that the outcome in Syria be favorable, be friendly and respect human rights.

Seeing as our human intelligence about what’s happening on the ground inside Syria is so incredibly deficient, we don’t know which rebel groups are the “good guys” and which ones might be radical Islamists. Our friends — and we do have them in Turkey and Iraq — do know, or they could find out.

With the death toll rising daily in Syria, it’s long past time to stop the bluff and bluster about “pushing” the Russians or hoping more toothless U.N. sanctions will somehow work. What we and the long-suffering people of Syria need right now is some quiet diplomacy with our friends — and prayers that whatever we do won’t leak.

“The best defense is a good offense,” runs an adage attributed to legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi. What’s true in football is even more true in politics.

As the election marches through a long, hot summer, Republicans need to go on the offensive on medical care. Playing defense against the assaults by President Obama and his Democratic allies is the path to defeat. They’re going to use the President’s healthcare plan to attack Republicans, using the socialized medicine scheme as a wedge to pry a large gap between the GOP and seniors, young folks, the working middle class and others.

“We have to keep up the drumbeat with the American public,” Sally Pipes told us. The president of the Pacific Research Institute is a noted expert on the politics and economics of medical care. Her book, “The Pipes Plan: The Top Ten Ways to Dismantle Obama-care,” recently was published by Regnery Publishing, owned by the same company that owns Human Events, Eagle Publishing, Inc.

She added, “Republicans need to explain why the Obamacare legislation is bad for Americans’ health. They need to work for full repeal in 2013 if the GOP takes back the White House and the Senate, and keeps the House. Then, Republicans would replace it with the plan outlined in my book.”

Free market solutions

Among other things, her book discusses the impending bankruptcy of Medicare, the massive taxes needed to fund Obamacare, Medicaid waste in helping the poor, coverage mandates and the virtual enslavement of young people. The appealing solutions: Allow cheaper, high-deductible insurance plans, much as are available for vehicles; expand health-savings accounts; implement block-grant Medicare to states, so they can innovate at the local level; and give Medicare patients choices among plans. In short, give freedom back patients and promote competition.

On the state mandates, Pipes explained in a May 23 article in Investor’s Business Daily, “The Medicaid population in each state is different, so states should have the flexibility to determine their own eligibility requirements, benefit levels, and means of delivering care.” People know their own states are different from others. Texas is different from California, Mississippi from Maine. So freeing the states is a winner.

We believe that just such a proactive strategy could help presumptive nominee Mitt Romney with a major weakness: his passage of the similar Romneycare program when he was governor of Massachusetts a decade ago. His Republican rivals in the GOP primaries roundly criticized him over Romneycare. But as he later said, the many debates sharpened his own candidacy and prepared him to face Barack Obama.

In this context, Republicans should play to their strengths. For example, they should say, “Let’s run medical care like Steve Jobs’ Apple instead of the DMV.” That brings up in voters’ minds the world’s most admired and wealthiest company, contrasting it with people standing in long line and dealing with grumpy government DMV functionaries.

Republicans also should show how they would free young people from the Obamacare burdens. In 2008, candidate Obama appealed to youngsters’ boundless hopes for a better future. It contrasted with—let’s face it—Sen. John McCain’s rather curmudgeonly campaign.

A better model

A better model for the GOP is that of Ronald Reagan. The Gipper’s 1980 and ’84 campaigns promised limitless opportunity for those with ideas who worked hard. He turned hopes into reality as the computer and other fields blossomed under the Reagan Revolution.

Another thing to emphasize is that government bureaucrats, not doctors, will determine what kinds of coverage people get under Obamacare. That was a key factor on Aug. 3, 2010, when a whopping 71 percent of Missouri voters passed Measure C, which blocked Obamacare health-coverage mandates. The Show Me State showed that Americans don’t like being bossed around.

Republicans also should try putting such initiatives on the ballot in other states. Although in only 24 states can initiatives enact legislation, in the remaining states non-binding advisories could be put before voters. If Democratic-controlled legislatures block such efforts, the publicity still would benefit the anti-Obamacare cause. Republicans could respond, “Obamacare is so bad Democrats won’t even let us vote on it.”

To defeat Obamacare, more than just ideas are needed: Hard, hard work. The Democrats aren’t going to let up. Neither should Republicans. As Lombardi said, “The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary.”

House Republicans have their legislative marching orders for the summer, which includes passing legislation to shrink the size of government, to promote private sector job creation and to cut taxes as well as the price of gas.

In a memo to members last week, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said tax cuts that are scheduled to expire in January as well as the coming medical device tax will have a negative impact on jobs. A vote has been scheduled for June to overturn the measure.

“Very little of what we do this summer will be able to offset the harm to small businesses if the largest tax increase in American history is allowed to go into effect Jan. 1, 2013,” Cantor said in the memo. “Working families and small business should not be saddled with the uncertainty of a looming tax increase as they attempt to invest and grow for the remainder of this year.”

Specially tailored bills will cut red tape, sell or transfer government land and modify restrictive land use designations.

Congress will vote on a bill to protect small business from government criminalization—a response to the August raid on Gibson Guitar for violating labor laws of another country in related to its import of unfinished wood. In July, the House will vote on Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) bill authorizing an audit of the Federal Reserve, and a measure to reform the U.S. Postal Service to keep it in business.

Finally, as the price of gas continues to act as a drag on an already sluggish economy, Cantor said a series of bills Congress will take up before Labor Day would encourage oil production on federal lands while cutting unnecessary red tape.

During a forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute earlier this week, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter appeared to have House Armed Services Committee Republicans in his cross-hairs. Carter said the decision to include $4 billion above the White House budget request in the House version of the Defense appropriations bill meant that new technology and innovation would be sacrificed in favor of aging programs and excess equipment.

“I just want to say that every dollar the United States spends on old and unnecessary programs is a dollar we lose from new, necessary strategic investments,” Carter said on Wednesday. “As Secretary Panetta has said, if we had an open bank account, we’d keep all of it, but we don’t have an open bank account.”

Items that should have been left on the chopping block, according to Carter: older Navy ships that had been earmarked for retirement, portions of the nation’s fleet of C-130 Hercules planes, and other Air Force elements. Carter also spoke disapprovingly of the committee’s decision to take the possibility of Base Realignment and Closure off the table and to walk back proposed fee increases to Tricare, the entity that provides health care to troops and veterans.

“No sacred cows,” was the principle in play, as Defense officials crafted a budget with tight fiscal parameters, according to Carter.

“Others can pick one item or another that they favor, but we have to balance them all,” he said.

It’s not a perspective that House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) can appreciate.

A day after Carter’s speech, McKeon took aim at those same “balance” decisions, telling members of the National Defense Industrial Association
How does the president plan to keep faith with our troops when he proposed to dramatically increase Tricare fees on military retirees, and create whole new fees?” McKeon said, according to remarks obtained by Politico’s Morning Defense. “The president’s vision of an “American Century” is hollow, dangerous, and takes for granted the military strength and power required to protect the homeland, assure our allies, and keep our enemies at bay.”

The White House has threatened to veto the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act, because, among other reasons, of the added $4 billion in funding and various attempts to override decisions made by the administration. Notably, Obama’s Defense budget request also came in about $4 billion over limits set by Congress with the Budget Control Act last year.

With the final terms of the 2013 National Defense Appropriations Act to be determined in conference between the House and Senate following Senate approval of its version of the bill, rhetoric is also heating up regarding the process of sequestration.

Pentagon officials confirmed to various media outlets this week that the budget-slashing mechanism set to take effect on the first of next year would not spare funding for ongoing combat operations in Afghanistan, as had been previously believed.

What remains unclear is how the sequester, which purports to cut Defense spending by 10 percent across the board over the next decade, will affect the war effort and provisions for the thousands of troops that remain deployed there.

“The time for guarded language is past,” McKeon fumed at the NDIA event. “(Sequestration) will do what countless tin pot dictators, ideological madmen, and ruthless suicide bombers have failed to do; sequestration will limit the United States’ power and influence in the world.”

At least here, the committee chairman and Deputy Secretary of Defense have common ground: Carter called the sequester an “awful prospect” and said that military and civilian program managers would face “absurdities” in trying to implement the doomsday measure.

A police show of force at an “armed party” where several officers converged and at least one had a gun drawn on the group was a seizure. Under Florida v. J.L. there is no firearms exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement. Here, there was none on this anonymous report. Without articulable reasonable suspicion, the court would be sanctioning general searches on the street. State v. Williamson, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 380 (May 31, 2012), revg State v. Williamson, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 656 (August 19, 2011):

Since the Court's decision in J.L., its principles have been applied in a variety of cases on both the federal and state levels. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the denial of a motion to suppress under facts similar to those before this Court today. In United States v. Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2011), police received an anonymous phone call alleging that eight shots had been fired in "a high-crime area." Id. at 482-83. As in this case, there was no description of the suspect. Id. at 483. One of the officers who responded to the call saw four young black men walking a few blocks from where the shots were allegedly fired. Id. ... The district court upheld the propriety of the stop and frisk .... The Fourth Circuit reversed, first emphasizing that in order to justify a frisk, "the Constitution requires 'a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.'" Id. at 486 (quoting United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 152 (4th Cir. 2009)). The court found "precious little" to demonstrate that the officer "had reasonable, particularized suspicion . . . such that a non[-]consensual frisk was lawful under the Fourth Amendment," holding that the anonymous tip neither provided any predictive information about the suspect nor tested the knowledge or credibility of the informant. Massenburg, 654 F.3d at 486-87. In addition, the court found that the tip's reliability was undermined because it did not include a "physical description of the perpetrators or any other outward identifying features," meaning that "the only link between the tip and Massenburg's group was [their] rough proximity to the alleged site of the gunfire." Id. at 487. Finally, the court observed that the location of the incident in a high-crime area failed to bolster the credibility or reliability of the anonymous tip. Id. at 488. "To hold otherwise," the court ruled,

would be to authorize general searches of persons on the street not unlike those conducted of old by the crown against the colonists. Allowing officers to stop and frisk any individuals in the neighborhood after even the most generic of anonymous tips would be tantamount to permitting a regime of general searches of virtually any individual residing in or found in high-crime neighborhoods, where complaints of random gunfire in the night are all too usual[].

Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

. . .

Based upon our review of J.L., and the numerous cases with comparable facts, we conclude that the anonymous tip to the Covington police was insufficient to support the stop and frisk of the Defendant. The unidentified 911 caller, whose complaint was relayed to the various officers by dispatch, contained only an allegation that an armed individual was outside a particular room at the Baxter Motel. The content of the tip provided even less support for a stop and frisk than that in J.L., as there was no description of the suspect, much less "predictive information," which would allow police "to test the informant's knowledge or credibility." 529 U.S. at 271; ... Because of the lack of descriptive information, as in Massenburg, "the only link between the tip" and the Defendant was his proximity to Room 21. 654 F.3d at 486-87.9 In Gomes, the tip at issue was substantially more detailed than the one before this Court, including a description of the suspect's appearance, the make and color of his car, in addition to the allegation that he was "holding a gun in the air" in a high-crime area, 937 N.E.2d at 14, yet the court determined that it was insufficient. In comparison, the tip in this case falls far short of providing sufficiently probative information.

Defense counsel was ineffective for misapprehending the standard for motel operator consent to search a room in not filing a motion to suppress. But, defendant was not prejudiced because he couldn’t show here that he wouldn’t have gone through with it anyway and not pled guilty. Goins v. State, 2012 S.C. LEXIS 110 (May 16, 2012):

Although the PCR court found that the police were in Goins' room to serve a warrant on the distribution charges, there is no evidence to support this finding in the record. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, the law is clear that a motel owner cannot lawfully consent to a search of a guest's room. However, in his PCR testimony as to why he advised against proceeding with the suppression hearing, counsel stated: "I told him in the suppression hearing that the law favored the landlord or basically that the proprietor of the motel being able to consent - - excuse me. Being able to unlock the door and let someone in." This unqualified statement is clearly inaccurate considering the search and seizure jurisprudence that specifically recognizes a landlord or motel owner does not enjoy an unfettered right to grant entry into the rented guest rooms of his establishment. We therefore agree with Goins that counsel informing him he could not have prevailed in the suppression hearing was erroneous and does not reflect "reasonable professional judgment. "

. . .

Although counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to properly advise Goins on the law regarding whether a motel owner can freely admit police into a rented room, Goins has failed to prove this advice was his reason for electing not to go to trial and has thus failed to establish prejudice. We therefore affirm the circuit court order denying Goins' PCR application.

Infowars.com | Infowars.com interviews author David Icke about Bilderberg, global activism and how the elites manipulating our reality.

Infowars.com | Andrew Breitbart exposed Glenn Beck's reprehensible scam several months before he died.

Jurriaan Maessen | There’s no conspiracy theory here. Just fact.

Infowars.com | Patrick Henningsen talks with financial expert Max Keiser about Bilderberg and the global financial meltdown.

Infowars.com | Guardian correspondent Charlie Skelton investigates the roots of the EU and Bilderberg.

Ron Arnold | MAIG’s agenda has expanded from tracking “illegal” guns used in crimes to promoting outright gun bans in Congress.

Police entry onto the curtilage, defendants’ carport, violated the Fourth Amendment because, while it could be seen, it was still a trespass under Jones. United States v. Perea-Rey, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10941 (9th Cir. May 31, 2012):

This confusion has persisted for decades. For example, in United States v. Magana, 512 F.2d 1169 (9th Cir. 1975), we stated that "'a reasonable expectation of privacy,' and not common-law property distinctions, now controls the scope of the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 1170-71 (citing Katz). Relying on Magana, we repeated this error in a recent opinion that the government cited to the district court. See United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010), vacated, 132 S. Ct. 1533, 182 L. Ed. 2d 151 (2012). In Pineda-Moreno, despite the government's admission that agents had, without a warrant, entered the curtilage of the defendant's home to place a mobile tracking device on his car in his driveway, our court concluded that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Pineda-Moreno had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage. Id. at 1215. The Supreme Court recently and emphatically repudiated this reasoning, explaining that "as we have discussed, the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test." Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 952.

After determining that the carport was part of the curtilage to the home, the district court erroneously concluded that the agents did not violate Perea-Rey's Fourth Amendment rights when they occupied the carport without a warrant. The Supreme Court has explained that the role of reasonable expectation analysis in evaluating the constitutionality of searches of the curtilage is only in determining the scope of the curtilage, and not the propriety of the intrusion. See Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 ("[T]he extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself."). The district court circularly reasoned that because the agents were able to freely enter the carport, Perea-Rey had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the carport. Yet, because it was curtilage, it was a constitutionally protected area, and the warrantless entry, search and seizure by the agents violated Perea-Rey's Fourth Amendment rights. See Payton, 445 U.S. at 586 ("It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable."). No further showing was required of Perea-Rey.

The district court also conflated the ability to observe inside the curtilage with the right to enter the curtilage without a warrant. Although a warrant is not required to observe readily visible items within the curtilage, and "officers [need not] shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares," California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S. Ct. 1809, 90 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1986), a warrant is required to enter the home. In Ciraolo, the Supreme Court held that warrantless aerial observation of the curtilage of a home was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that such observations could form the basis for probable cause to support a warrant to search the curtilage. Id. at 213-14. Only after obtaining a warrant based on the observations did officers actually enter Ciraolo's curtilage. The ability to observe part of the curtilage or the interior of a home does not authorize law enforcement, without a warrant, to then enter those areas to conduct searches or seizures. See Struckman, 603 F.3d at 747 ("[P]olice officers must either obtain a warrant or consent to enter before arresting a person inside a home or its curtilage or make a reasonable attempt to ascertain that he is actually a trespasser before making the arrest."). The agents here could observe the curtilage from the sidewalk and use those observations, as in Ciraolo, as the basis for a warrant application. But, the ability to see into the curtilage or the home does not, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement, authorize a warrantless entry by the government. Therefore, the district court erred by admitting the evidence simply because the officers could view the inside of the carport from the street.

On summary judgment, entry into plaintiff’s hotel room was without exigent circumstances or a warrant, and a jury might find the officers liable. On this claim, the law is well settled. “Making all inferences in plaintiffs' favor, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that a competent officer under the circumstances of this case would have understood both that exigent circumstances did not exist before the officers entered the room and that entering the room in the absence of such circumstances violated plaintiffs’ [clearly established] constitutional rights.” Inman v. Siciliano, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75285 (D. Mass. May 31, 2012).*

DUI traffic stop led to plain view of a switchblade in passenger’s lap which caused his arrest. Following that, a plain view of a gun led to a search for which he had no standing. United States v. Seigler, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10854 (3d Cir. May 30, 2012).*

In this murder case the defendant did not specify what was to be suppressed, but “[w]aiver notwithstanding, the only testimony is that the Defendant consented to the search of his vehicle.” That’s first a question of fact resolved against him. State v. Sexton, 2012 Tenn. LEXIS 377 (May 29, 2012).*

The government’s motion to compel DNA samples is granted. Defendants are already indicted, and it needs to test the samples to confirm a CODIS match. The government also has shown probable cause for the sample. United States v. Sexton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75847 (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2012):

The Court notes that "the obtaining of physical evidence from a person involves a potential Fourth Amendment violation at two different levels—the 'seizure' of the 'person' necessary to bring him into contact with government agents and the subsequent search for and seizure of the evidence." Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 8 (internal citation omitted). In this case, the first level is not at issue. An indictment has been returned against each Defendant, Dkt. # 23, and a neutral magistrate has found probable cause to seize each Defendant, Dkt. # 1. The Court thus moves to the second level question: whether, "'given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before [the Court] ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'" United States v. Tan Duc Nguyen, 673 F.3d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).

. . .

Moreover, the Court sees no reason to deny the United States' request as to the DNA or the fingerprints simply because the United States may have already procured similar samples. As the United States explains, the laboratory requests new DNA samples in order to confirm that the CODIS record is accurate. Frankly, this is not only logical, but reassuring. It minimizes the risk that an erroneous positive will result in the conviction of an innocent defendant. And while Defendants may have been fingerprinted already in this case, major case prints—a far more thorough recording of all the friction detail ridges covering the hand—have not been obtained.

Police arrived at the location of a 911 call that was just ending when they saw a man fitting the description of a man with a gun. All things considered, that was reasonable suspicion and not a generic discovery of this defendant. United States v. Willis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75858 (N.D. Okla. June 1, 2012)*:

In this case, police heard a dispatch that a black man wearing a gray shirt was present at a disturbance with a gun at a specific address. Officers Hamm and Zeller immediately responded to the dispatch and drove to the address. They arrived at the address within two minutes of hearing the dispatch, and they found a black man wearing a gray shirt about a block away from the 911 caller's house. ... [¶] Although not cited by the parties, the Court finds that the Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), is relevant to the Court's determination as to whether Officers Hamm and Zeller had reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop. ...

Considering the evidence known to Officers Hamm and Zeller before initiating the stop, the Court finds that the stop was reasonable from its inception. Defendant bore a reasonable resemblance to person described by the dispatcher and he was found near the 911 caller's house. Officers Hamm and Zeller arrived at 911 caller's house about two minutes after hearing the dispatch, and it was reasonable for them to believe that the black male wearing a gray shirt was the same person described by the dispatcher. The Court gives particular weight to the close geographical proximity of the defendant to the caller's house and the temporal proximity of the events. Officers Hamm and Zeller arrived at the 911 caller's house almost before the 911 call was completed and they found a person matching the description provided to them. The Court also notes that this was a residential area, not a commercial or high traffic area, and police were not confronted with a situation where they were likely to find numerous persons meeting a generic description. ...

A website on dealing with United States v. Jones in the future: usvjones.com:

USvJones.com
How to Define Fourth Amendment Doctrine for Searches in Public?

Papers due June 4th, if you're interested. A meeting in DC June 7-8.

Infowars.com | Photos documenting events yesterday as the criminal class arrived for their previously secret meeting.