• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0
it's the law ...
choose sides carefully

On Jun 28, 8:02 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights****
>
> ** **
> Know Your Rights! <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights>****
>
> [image:https://www.eff.org/files/know-your-rights-privacy.png]By Hanni
> Fakhoury, EFF Staff Attorney
> June 2011****
>
> Know Your Rights
> Whitepaper<https://www.eff.org/files/EFF_Know_Your_Rights_2011.pdf>(pdf)
> EFF Police Tips <https://www.eff.org/files/EFF_Police_Tips_2011.pdf> (pdf)**
> **
>
> Your computer, your phone, and your other digital devices hold vast amounts
> of personal information about you and your family. This is sensitive data
> that's worth protecting from prying eyes - including those of the
> government.****
>
> The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable
> government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your
> computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world?
> What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up
> at your door and want to search your computer?****
>
> EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers
> try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic
> device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else.****
>
> Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil
> case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult
> with an attorney.****
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Can the police enter my home to search my computer or portable device, like
> a laptop or cell phone?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *No,* in most instances, unless they have a warrant. But there are two major
> exceptions: (1) you consent to the
> search;1<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote1_emzw9bk>or
> (2) the police have probable cause to believe there is incriminating
> evidence on the computer that is under immediate threat of
> destruction.2<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote2_pcczjch>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *What if the police have a search warrant to enter my home, but not to
> search my computer? Can they search it then?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *No,* typically, because a search warrant only allows the police to search
> the area or items described in the
> warrant.3<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote3_qfsxppw>But
> if the warrant authorizes the police to search for evidence of a
> particular crime, and such evidence is likely to be found on your computer,
> some courts have allowed the police to search the computer without a
> warrant.4 <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote4_ki7r7dp>Additionally,
> while the police are searching your home, if they observe
> something in plain view on the computer that is suspicious or incriminating,
> they may take it for further examination and can rely on their observations
> to later get a search
> warrant.5<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote5_8wunwrg>And
> of course, if you consent, any search of your computer is permissible.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Can my roommate/guest/spouse/partner allow the police access to my
> computer?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *Maybe.* A third party can consent to a search as long as the officers
> reasonably believe the third person has control over the thing to be
> searched.6 <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote6_ny3xgzh>However,
> the police cannot search if one person with control (for example a
> spouse) consents, but another individual (the other spouse) with control
> does not.7 <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote7_wdnik6q> One
> court, however, has said that this rule applies only to a residence, and not
> personal property, such as a hard drive placed into someone else's computer.
> 8 <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote8_b305n7f>****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *What if the police want to search my computer, but I'm not the subject of
> their investigation?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> It typically does not matter whether the police are investigating you, or
> think there is evidence they want to use against someone else located on
> your computer. If they have a warrant, you consent to the search, or they
> think there is something incriminating on your computer that may be
> immediately destroyed, the police can search it. Regardless of whether
> you're the subject of an investigation, you can always seek the assistance
> of a lawyer.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Can I see the warrant?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *Yes.* The police must take the warrant with them when executing it and give
> you a copy of it.9<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote9_eud14wi>They
> must also knock and announce their entry before entering your home
> 10 <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote10_nnx3oth> and must
> serve the warrant during the day in most
> circumstances.11<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote11_59lcttg>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Can the police take my computer with them and search it somewhere else?****
> *
>
> *A:*
>
> *Yes.* As long as the police have a warrant, they can seize the computer and
> take it somewhere else to search it more thoroughly. As part of that
> inspection, the police may make a copy of media or other files stored on
> your computer.12<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote12_ppsukui>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Do I have to cooperate with them when they are searching?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *No,* you do not have to help the police conduct the search. But *you should
> not physically interfere with them, obstruct the search, or try to destroy
> evidence*, since that can lead to your arrest. This is true even if the
> police don't have a warrant and you do not consent to the search, but the
> police insist on searching anyway. In that instance, do not interfere but
> write down the names and badge numbers of the officers and immediately call
> a lawyer.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Do I have to answer their questions while they are searching my home
> without a warrant?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *No,* you do not have to answer any questions. In fact, because anything you
> say can be used against you and other individuals, it is best to say nothing
> at all until you have a chance to talk to a lawyer. However, if you do
> decide to answer questions, be sure to tell the truth. It is a crime to lie
> to a police officer and you may find yourself in more trouble for lying to
> law enforcement than for whatever it was they wanted on your
> computer.13<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote13_wt70woy>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *If the police ask for my encryption keys or passwords, do I have to turn
> them over?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *No.* The police can't force you to divulge anything. However, a judge or a
> grand jury may be able to. The Fifth Amendment protects you from being
> forced to give the government self-incriminating testimony. If turning over
> an encryption key or password triggers this right, not even a court can
> force you to divulge the information. But whether that right is triggered is
> a difficult question to answer. If turning over an encryption key or
> password will reveal to the government information it does not have (such as
> demonstrating that you have control over files on a computer), there is a
> strong argument that the Fifth Amendment protects
> you.14<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote14_cnawh8n>If,
> however, turning over passwords and encryption keys will not
> incriminate
> you, then the Fifth Amendment does not protect you. Moreover, even if you
> have a Fifth Amendment right that protects your encryption keys or
> passwords, a grand jury or judge may still order you to disclose your data
> in an unencrypted format under certain
> circumstances.15<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote15_j6zcnpb>If
> you find yourself in a situation where the police are demanding that
> you
> turn over encryption keys or passwords, let EFF know.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *If my computer is taken and searched, can I get it back?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *Perhaps.* If your computer was illegally seized, then you can file a motion
> with the court to have the property
> returned.16<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote16_s17p0zg>If
> the police believe that evidence of a crime has been found on your
> computer (such as "digital contraband" like pirated music and movies, or
> digital images of child pornography), the police can keep the computer as
> evidence. They may also attempt to make you forfeit the computer, but you
> can challenge that in
> court.17<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote17_b3aqgg6>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *What about my work computer?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *It depends.* Generally, you have some Fourth Amendment protection in your
> office or workspace.18<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote18_wa1r13h>This
> means the police need a warrant to search your office and work
> computer
> unless one of the exceptions described above applies. But the extent of
> Fourth Amendment protection depends on the physical details of your work
> environment, as well as any employer policies. For example, the police will
> have difficulty justifying a warrantless search of a private office with
> doors and a lock and a private computer that you have exclusive access to.
> On the other hand, if you share a computer with other co-workers, you will
> have a weaker expectation of privacy in that computer, and thus less Fourth
> Amendment protection.19<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote19_5x0bllk>However,
> be aware that your employer can consent to a police request to
> search an office or
> workspace.20<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote20_ztpjpme>Moreover,
> if you work for a public entity or government agency, no warrant
> is required to search your computer or office as long as the search is for a
> non-investigative, work-related
> matter.21<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote21_dx11c1e>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *I've been arrested. Can the police search my cell phone without a warrant?*
> ****
>
> *A:*
>
> *Maybe.* After a person has been arrested, the police generally may search
> the items on her person and in her pockets, as well as anything within her
> immediate control.22<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote22_79aa8ko>This
> means that the police can physically take your cell phone and anything
> else in your pockets. Some courts go one step further and allow the police
> to search the *contents* of your cell phone, like text messages, call logs,
> emails, and other data stored on your phone, without a
> warrant.23<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote23_4ysx44k>Other
> courts disagree, and require the police to seek a warrant.
> 24 <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote24_n2u3eoi> It depends
> on the circumstances and where you live.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *The police pulled me over while I was driving. Can they search my cell
> phone?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *Maybe.* If the police believe there is probably evidence of a crime in your
> car, they may search areas within a driver or passenger's reach where they
> believe they might find it - like the glove box, center console, and other
> "containers."25
> <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote25_r71cozc>Some
> courts have found cell phones to be "containers" that police may
> search
> without a warrant.26<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote26_my4ok8r>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Can the police search my computer or portable devices at the border without
> a warrant?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> *Yes.* So far, courts have ruled that almost any search at the border is
> "reasonable" - so government agents don't need to get a warrant. This means
> that officials can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if
> they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on
> it.27<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote27_g1k5iu4>An
> international airport may be considered the functional equivalent of a
> border, even if it is many miles from the actual
> border.28<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote28_d98ym08>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Q:*
>
> *Can the police take my electronic device away from the border or airport
> for further examination without a warrant?*****
>
> *A:*
>
> At least one federal court has said *yes,* they can send it elsewhere for
> further inspection if
> necessary.29<https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnote29_a8ligkg>Even
> though you may be permitted to enter the country, your computer or
> portable device may not be.****
>
> *Want to test your new knowledge?*
> Take EFF's Know Your Digital Rights
> Quiz!<https://www.eff.org/pages/know-your-digital-rights-quiz>
> ****
>
> *Need an easy way to remember your rights?*
> We have a handy one-page
> guide<https://www.eff.org/files/EFF_Police_Tips_2011.pdf>to help you
> talk to police if they come knocking. Print for your server room
> or workstation, or save it to your desktop for easy reference! ****
>
> *Want to learn more about how to protect yourself from unreasonable
> government snooping on your computer or portable electronic devices?*****
>
> Then be sure to check out EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense
> Guide!<https://ssd.eff.org/>
> ****
>
> **1.     **1. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref1_emzw9bk>
> *Schneckloth v. Bustamonte*, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); *United States v.
> Vanvilet*, 542 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 2008).****
>
> **2.     **2. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref2_pcczjch>
> *Ker v. California*, 374 U.S. 23 (1963); *see also United States v.
> Vallimont*, 378 Fed.Appx. 972 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished); *United States
> v. Smith*, 2010 WL 1949364 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).****
>
> **3.     **3. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref3_qfsxppw>
> *See Maryland v. Garrison*, 480 U.S. 79, 84-85 (1987) (citing cases).****
>
> **4.     **4. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref4_ki7r7dp>
> *See e.g., United States v. Mann*, 592 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2010); *see also
> Brown v. City of Fort Wayne*, 752 F.Supp.2d 925 (N.D. Ind. 2010).****
>
> **5.     **5. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref5_8wunwrg>
> *Horton v. California*, 496 U.S. 128 (1990); *see also United States v.
> Walser*, 275 F.3d 981 (10th Cir. 2001); *United States v. Carey*, 172 F.3d
> 1268 (10th Cir. 1999).****
>
> **6.     **6. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref6_ny3xgzh>
> *Illinois v. Rodriguez*, 497 U.S. 177 (1990); *United States v. Stabile*,
> 633 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2011); *United States v. Andrus*, 483 F.3d 711 (10th
> Cir. 2007).****
>
> **7.     **7. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref7_wdnik6q>
> *Georgia v. Randolph*, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).****
>
> **8.     **8. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref8_b305n7f>
> *United States v. King*, 604 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2010) (court approved search
> and seizure where two housemates shared a desktop computer, and one
> housemate granted the police access to the entire computer over the other
> housemate's objections, even though the objecting housemate was the sole
> owner of a hard drive in the computer).****
>
> **9.     **9. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref9_eud14wi>
> Federal
> Rule of Criminal Procedure
> 41(f)(1)(C)<http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm>
> .****
>
> **10.  **10. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref10_nnx3oth>
> *Wilson v. Arkansas*, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).****
>
> **11.  **11. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref11_59lcttg>
> Federal
> Rule of Criminal Procedure
> 41(e)(2)(A)(ii)<http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm>
> .****
>
> **12.  **12. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref12_ppsukui>
> *See e.g., United States v. Hill*, 459 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2006); *In re
> Search of 3817 W. West End, First Floor Chicago, Illinois 60621*, 321
> F.Supp.2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2004); *see also* Federal Rule of Criminal
> Procedure 41(e)(2)(B) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm>.*
> ***
>
> **13.  **13. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref13_wt70woy>Compare
> 18
> U.S.C. § 1001(a) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html> (maximum
> punishment for first offense of lying to federal officer is 5 or 8 years)
> with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2) and
> (c)(2)(A)<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030--...>(maximum
> punishment for first offense of simply exceeding authorized
> computer access is generally 1 year).****
>
> **14.  **14. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref14_cnawh8n>
> *See United States v. Kirschner*, 2010 WL 1257355 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2010)
> (unpublished) (relying on *United States v. Hubbell*, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)).**
> **
>
> **15.  **15. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref15_j6zcnpb>
> *See e.g., United States v. Hatfield*, 2010 WL 1423103 (E.D.N.Y. April 7,
> 2010) (unpublished); *In re Boucher*, 2009 WL 424718 (D. Vt. Feb. 19, 2009)
> (unpublished).****
>
> **16.  **16. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref16_s17p0zg>
> Federal
> Rule of Criminal Procedure
> 41(g)<http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm>
> .****
>
> **17.  **17. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref17_b3aqgg6>
> *See* 18 U.S.C. § 983 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/983.html>, Federal
> Rule of Criminal Procedure
> 32.2<http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/search/display.html?terms=32....>
> .****
>
> **18.  **18. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref18_wa1r13h>
> *Mancusi v. DeForte*, 392 U.S. 364 (1968); *United States v. Ziegler*, 474
> F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2007).****
>
> **19.  **19. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref19_5x0bllk>
> *See e.g., Schowengerdt v. United States*, 944 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1991).****
>
> **20.  **20. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref20_ztpjpme>
> *See Ziegler*, 474 F.3d at 1191 (citing *Mancusi*).****
>
> **21.  **21. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref21_dx11c1e>
> *City of Ontario v. Quon*, 130 S.Ct. 2619 (2010); *O'Connor v. Ortega*, 480
> U.S. 709 (1987).****
>
> **22.  **22. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref22_79aa8ko>
> *Chimel v. California*, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). ****
>
> **23.  **23. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref23_4ysx44k>
> *See e.g., United States v. Murphy*, 552 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009); *United
> States v. Wurie*, 612 F.Supp.2d 104 (D. Mass. 2009); *People v. Diaz*, 51
> Cal.4th 84, 244 P.3d 501 (2011).****
>
> **24.  **24. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref24_n2u3eoi>
> *See e.g., United States v. Wall*, 2008 WL 5381412 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 22, 2008)
> (unpublished); *United States v. Park*, 2007 WL 1521573 (N.D. Cal. May 23,
> 2007) (unpublished); *State v. Smith*, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 920 N.E.2d 949
> (2009).****
>
> **25.  **25. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref25_r71cozc>
> *Arizona v. Gant*, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).****
>
> **26.  **26. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref26_my4ok8r>
> *See e.g., United States v. Finley*, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007); *Wurie*,
> 612 F.Supp.2d at 109-110; *United States v. Cole*, 2010 WL 3210963
> (N.D.Ga<http://n.d.ga/>.
> Aug. 11, 2010) (unpublished); *United States v. McCray*, 2009 WL 29607 (
> S.D.Ga <http://s.d.ga/>. Jan. 5, 2009) (unpublished).****
>
> **27.  **27. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref27_g1k5iu4>
> *United States v. Flores-Montano*, 541 U.S. 149 (2004); *United States v.
> Ickes*, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005).****
>
> **28.  **28. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref28_d98ym08>
> *Almeida-Sanchez v. United States*, 413 U.S. 266, 273 (1973); *United States
> v. Arnold*, 533 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2008); *United States v. Romm*, 455 F.3d
> 990 (9th Cir. 2006); *United States v. Roberts*, 274 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir.
> 2001).****
>
> **29.  **29. <https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights#footnoteref29_a8ligkg>
> *United States v. Cotterman*, 637 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2011).****
>
> ** **
>
>  image001.png
> 27KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Seen this exact same one before.... where are the documents ?? anyone
that actually had them would post them.

On Jun 28, 7:12 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>     <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/> "Nationality :
> Indonesian" - Obama Ineligibility Smoking Gun
> Found!<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/nationality-indones...>
> *Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>* | June 28,
> 2011 at 4:37 pm | Tags: Barack
> Obama<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=barack-obama>,
> deception <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=deception>,
> lies<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=lies>,
> Occidental College
> transcripts<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=occidental-college-transc...>,
> secrecy <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=secrecy> |
> Categories: 2012
> Election <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=4934384>,
> Constitution<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=29050>,
> Crazy Politicians <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=232565>,
> Liberals <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=35711271>, United
> States <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=5850>, US
> Presidents<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=51656283>| URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-7PR
>
> One of the many documents from his past which Obama has refused to make
> public are his Occidental College records, the concealment of which has
> fueled speculations that those transcripts contain incriminating information
> relevant to the matter of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be
> President.
>
> Now, an article in PressCore claims to have Obama's Occidental College
> transcripts. They show the following:
>
> *Name:* Barry Soetoro
>
> *Religion:* Islam
>
> *Nationality:* Indonesian
>
> I just happened to stumble upon this an hour ago, on a website I've never
> heard of before, PressCore. The article is dated TEN days ago -- June 18,
> 2011. While I don't expect to see this news in the mainstream media, I can't
> believe even the alternative media haven't picked this up. But if the
> document (Obama's Occidental College transcripts) is authentic, we finally
> have the smoking gun in the matter of Obama's ineligibility.
>
> Here's the article in its entirety.
>
> *~Eowyn*
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/occidental-colle...>
> Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama
> presidency <http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=2929>
>
> Posted  by PC - PressCore - June 18, 2011
>
> The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama's presidency is Obama's college
> transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student
> aid.  Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that
> Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign
> student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript
> from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for
> financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign
> students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship
> program<http://fulbright.state.gov/about/frequently-asked-questions#faq1>–
> an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S.
> government.  Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for
> non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S.  To
> qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student
> applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document
> would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have
> been seeking.  The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and
> Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United
> States.
>
> *"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
> States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible
> to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
> Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
> fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."*
>
> Obama hasn't met and doesn't meet the basic qualifications for the
> presidency – must be natural born citizen.
>
> Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible
> to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the
> commander-in-chief is a fraud.
>
> The filed indictments disputes Obama's eligibility to be president under the
> U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United
> States presidency be "natural born" citizens.
>
> U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their
> Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have
> challenged Obama's legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.
>
> On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given
> orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he
> shouldn't have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not
> legally President and Commander in Chief.  The military revoked the orders
> with no reason given.  Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this
> thing go to court before a judge!
>
> "In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
> District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider
> granting his client's request based upon Cook's belief that Obama is not a
> natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to
> serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces," the Ledger-Enquirer
> reported.
>
> Cook "would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in
> military actions outside the United States under this President's command. …
> simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal
> by the faithful execution of these duties," Taitz stated.
>
> Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a
> state.
>
> There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to
> be president because he wasn't born in the United States. And there is
> credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as
> President of the United States.
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/la-times.jpg>
>
> Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally
> registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of
> Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College
> days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the
> California assembly in reference to grants given to *foreign exchange
> students* (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not
> a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn't qualify for foreign exchange student
> funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
>
> The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his
> childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name
> would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an
> official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant
> proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence
> is stating that Barack Obama's legal first name is Barry not Barrack.
>
> A biography of Obama's Occidental College days states that when Obama was
> 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn't until he met a girl
> by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack.  Regina was
> the first to start calling him Barack.  There seems to be no record of Obama
> legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.
>
> While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had
> to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any
> other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro
> in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants
> given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the
> State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity.
> Anybody else would've been disbarred for this and the matter would've been
> forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud,
> however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal
> his identity?
>
> If Obama didn't legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the
> birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery.  If his name
> was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is
> Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to
> receive college funding.  Obama knowingly presented a false document to the
> state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally
> acquire financial aid.
>
> U.S. Code
>
> TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
>
> *§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry*
> (a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case,
> proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the
> United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of
> aliens; or
> (b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or
> required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a
> citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or
> (c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration
> of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or
> other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any
> duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud
> or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant
> in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or
> (d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or
> statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or
> affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with
> respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition,
> certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or
> writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration,
> naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
> (e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at
> any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the
> intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or
> State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the
> United States; or
>
> (f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a
> citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any
> Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or
> referendum)—
>
> This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama.   Official
> Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama
> is an impostor.
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/nationality-indones...>
>
>   [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
> by Email <http://support.wordpress.com/post-by-email/> feature.
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


World War II: Still Being Touted as the Quintessential Keynesian Miracle
By Robert Higgs | Tuesday June 28, 2011 at 5:14 PM PDT

Someone must have imagined that my hopes for improved economic understanding might be excessively optimistic today and thus needed to be curbed to restore my normal emotional balance, because that person undertook to smash any such hopes to dust by e-mailing me a link to a HuffingtonPost article by Paul Abrams, "Economically, World War II Was Stimulus on Steroids." This screed turns out to be an ostensible macroeconomics lesson composed in equal measure of economic foolishness, historical ignorance, and ideological tendentiousness – the veritable epitome of a worse-than-worthless contribution to public enlightenment.

The opening paragraphs indicate the direction of Abrams's argument:

The next time someone argues that the New Deal failed, and only the Second World War ended the Depression, as 'proof' that government spending does not work, one can respond with the details of economic growth and unemployment reduction up to 1940, or one can ignore the claim and thank them for making your case for massive government spending in a deep, broad recession.
Right wing politicians are loathe to credit the New Deal with any success in hoisting the United States out of the Great Depression, but credit World War II for that achievement, believing that that somehow disproves Keynesian economic theory.
That claim, however, undermines their entire premise.

Abrams concludes that "massive government spending at a time of severe economic downturn and dislocation can indeed get an economy humming again," as World War II shows; the New Deal was merely too timid. He seems unaware that his argument merely restates the fallacy-ridden hodge-podge of conventional wisdom about how World War II "got the economy out of the Depression" that has dominated the thinking of economists, historians, and the public ever since the war itself.

When I began to teach U.S. economic history at the University of Washington in the late 1960s, I quickly realized that this tale of the wartime "Keynesian miracle" could not withstand critical scrutiny once one went beyond the barest account of it in terms of the elementary Keynesian model and the standard government macro measures, such as GDP, the consumer price index, and the rate of civilian unemployment. Almost immediately I saw that unemployment had disappeared during the war not because of the beautiful workings of a Keynesian multiplier, but entirely because about 20 percent of the labor force was forced, directly or indirectly, into the armed forces and a comparable number of employees set to work in factories, shipyards, and other facilities turning out war-related "goods" the government purchased only after forcing the  public to pay for them sooner (via wartime taxes and inflation) or later (via repayment of wartime borrowing). Thus, the great wartime "boom" consisted entirely of (1) some people's mass engagement in wreaking death and destruction and (2) other people's employment in producing supplies for these warriors after the government's military labor drain, turning out "goods" never valued by consumers or private producers in voluntary transactions, but rather ordered by government functionaries and priced completely arbitrarily in a command-and-control economy. In no sense was the alleged "wartime prosperity" comparable to real, normal prosperity. The pervasive regimentation, rationing, price controls, direct government resource allocations, and forbidden forms of production (e.g., civilian automobiles) should have served as a tip-off.

After teaching my own students along these lines for many years, I eventually began to write articles and books pulling together my various studies. The most coherent of these books is my Depression, War, and Cold War, published originally by Oxford University Press in 2006. For all of the good I've done in correcting people's understanding of what happened to the U.S. economy during World War and what lessons one might justifiably draw from that experience about, say, the scientific validity of the Keynesian model or its related fiscal-policy implications,  I might just as well have held my breath and turned blue. Here we are in June 2011, and millions of Americans are being presented with the purest potion of economic misinformation one can imagine, an account in no way superior to those the young Keynesians were peddling so confidently in 1944, when I was born. Perhaps my mother ought to have strangled me in my crib, to spare me to bitter disappointment of seeing the research and writing I've carried out over more than forty years prove to have been completely in vain.

For the Paul Abrams's of this world, of course, none of this makes the slightest difference. They are at pains not to understand how the economy actually works or to endorse policies that promote its greater productivity, but only to concoct a plausible rationale for the government's taxing "the rich" more heavily and spending oodles of money on a laundry list of leftist idols ­ government "infrastructure," green energy-conservation programs, high-speed rail, and the rest of the wasteful and economically foolish purposes that progressive politicians espouse to feather their own nests and enrich their cronies and political dependents at public expense. If they haven't learned any sound economics by this time, chances are slim to none that they will ever learn any, but I cannot believe that they care about such learning, in any event. Politics is the name, plunder's the game.

There's a lesson here, besides the obvious one that public discourse consists overwhelmingly of ideological sound and fury, signifying nothing solidly connected to reality. For me, the main lesson is: mommas, don't let your babies grow up to become economic historians. If you do, you only put them in line to have their hearts broken.

http://blog.independent.org/2011/06/28/world-war-ii-still-being-touted-as-the-quintessential-keynesian-miracle/



"Nationality: Indonesian" - Obama Ineligibility Smoking Gun Found!

One of the many documents from his past which Obama has refused to make public are his Occidental College records, the concealment of which has fueled speculations that those transcripts contain incriminating information relevant to the matter of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President.

Now, an article in PressCore claims to have Obama's Occidental College transcripts. They show the following:

Name: Barry Soetoro

Religion: Islam

Nationality: Indonesian

I just happened to stumble upon this an hour ago, on a website I've never heard of before, PressCore. The article is dated TEN days ago -- June 18, 2011. While I don't expect to see this news in the mainstream media, I can't believe even the alternative media haven't picked this up. But if the document (Obama's Occidental College transcripts) is authentic, we finally have the smoking gun in the matter of Obama's ineligibility.

Here's the article in its entirety.

~Eowyn

Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency

Posted  by PC - PressCore - June 18, 2011

The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama's presidency is Obama's college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid.  Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government.  Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S.  To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking.  The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Obama hasn't met and doesn't meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.

Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.

The filed indictments disputes Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be "natural born" citizens.

U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama's legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.

On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn't have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief.  The military revoked the orders with no reason given.  Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!

"In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client's request based upon Cook's belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces," the Ledger-Enquirer reported.

Cook "would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President's command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties," Taitz stated.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.

There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn't born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn't qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama's legal first name is Barry not Barrack.

A biography of Obama's Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn't until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack.  Regina was the first to start calling him Barack.  There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.

While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would've been disbarred for this and the matter would've been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?

If Obama didn't legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery.  If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding.  Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.

U.S. Code

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or
(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or
(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—

This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama.   Official Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is an impostor.

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.








 

 

Obama Pushes $600 Billion in New Taxes in Debt Talks

Monday, 27 Jun 2011 05:30 PM

By Martin Gould

President Barack Obama threw the talks on the debt ceiling crisis into turmoil on Monday afternoon by proposing a $600 billion tax hike before even meeting with Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.

Just as Democrats and Republicans seemed to be inching toward an agreement that would stave off the prospect of a default on the nation's debts, Obama introduced a measure that is sure to have the GOP howling in opposition.

The new wrench in the works drew scorn from conservatives.

"The Democrats' insistence on touting their desire to 'end tax breaks to oil and gas companies' is becoming quite tiresome," wrote Andrew Stiles at the National Review's website. "It's basically their only specific new tax proposal, but would amount to saving of just $21 billion over a decade. That's a long way to $600 billion."

Other conservatives ridiculed the idea that the White House could be taking such a proposal seriously.

"The White House has proposed raising about $600 billion in new tax revenue, including ending subsidies to oil and gas companies, an idea that failed in the Senate," wrote Bryan Preston at the conservative PJ Tattler blog on Pajamas Media.

"It failed in a Democrat-controlled Senate, and with good reason: It's a terrible idea. I was at first tempted to post a hoary old Admiral Ackbar – "It's a trap!" graphic on this story, but it doesn't really merit that," Preston continued. "Calling it a trap at least implies that the GOP might fall for it. Honestly, I don't see that happening. So if it's not a trap, what is this? For one thing, it's the Democrats' answer to everything. For another, it's class warfare, which is also the Democrats' answer to everything."

The move came as Republicans signaled that they were finally prepared to talk about cuts to military spending, one of the major roadblocks to agreement.

"When we say everything is on the table, that's what we mean," House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy said before Obama's announcement.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced the tax proposals after Obama met Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday morning. He is due to meet McConnell later in the day in a bid to find "common ground." It is the first time the president has personally gotten involved in the debt ceiling talks.

Carney said the president is still hopeful that the two sides can come to an agreement but said Republicans have to realize that some taxes must go up. "It's the only way to get it done," Carney said.

Among Obama's proposals are an end to tax breaks for big companies and the richest and taxing equity and hedge fund managers on income tax rates rather than capital gains tax rates.

Other changes include changing depreciation rules on corporate jets, limiting itemized deductions for the wealthy and repealing a tax benefit that companies use for inventory accounting.

Earlier the Republicans were making it clear that such tax increases are the only point on which there can be no negotiation, so Obama's move seems almost assured to stall the talks once more. McConnell said, "It is my hope that the president will take those off the table today so that we can have a serious discussion about our country's economic future."

The president has just five weeks to bring the two sides to an agreement that will allow the country to raise the $14.3 trillion ceiling before August 2 or risk defaulting on its debts. Last week, bipartisan talks led by Vice President Joe Biden fell apart when the GOP representatives walked out.

House Speaker John Boehner insisted the increase in the limit must be offset with spending cuts without any tax hikes.

"These are the realities of the situation," he said. "If the president and his allies want the debt limit increased, it is only going to happen via a measure that meets these tests."

And McConnell added, "Throwing more tax revenue into the mix is not going to produce a desirable result, and it won't pass. Putting aside that Republicans don't like to raise taxes, Democrats don't either."

For the Democrats, Carney said, "We won't support an approach that gives millionaires and billionaires $200,000 tax cuts annually while 33 seniors pay for that with $6,000 per person increase in their Medicare costs."

Biden had been leading the talks that had involved Rep. Eric Cantor and Sen. Jon Kyl on the GOP side and Sens. Max Baucus and Daniel Inouye and Reps. James Clyburn and Chris Van Holland for the Democrats. But they came to a screeching halt when Cantor walked out on Thursday and Kyl followed.

Carney said the involvement of the president, and the leaders of the two parties in both the Senate and the House had always been inevitable. "It is not as though this negotiating group could simply declare into law what they agreed on," he said. "The process was always going to have to proceed out of the negotiating room and move forward with the engagement of the speaker, Senate leaders, the House minority leader, the president, et cetera."

Before the president's statement, both sides seemed to be softening. Republicans had started to talk of military cuts in recent days, especially as troops prepare to leave both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Previously defense spending had been seen as non-negotiable within the GOP. But news stories that have revealed the military is spending $20 billion a year in air conditioning costs alone have suggested there is room for cuts at the Pentagon.

Freshman GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, an active-duty Air National Guardsman who flew missions in Iraq, acknowledged in The Washington Post that defense spending is "a pillar of Republican strength." But he added, "Look, I know there are sacred cows, but we cannot afford them anymore,"

And another Republican, Rep. Robert Hurt of Virginia, added, "I would never support anything that would reduce the safety of the troops on the ground. But bureaucracy is bureaucracy, and there are ways to get at it, even in the Pentagon."

The Democrats moved too. Before he left the talks, Cantor had even praised them for finding $2 trillion in cuts over 10 years.

Now the prospect of any agreement leaves Boehner with the most to lose. Many pundits believe Cantor's decision to quit the talks was a politically motivated bid to score points with tea party members and other conservatives in the GOP.

"The speaker is now politically exposed to fire from every direction as he goes into the final phase of negotiations with President Obama and the Democrats," Fox News analyst Juan Williams wrote in The Hill.

Williams had harsh words for Cantor, saying he "threw Boehner under the bus," by leaving the talks and telling The Wall Street Journal before informing leaders of his own party. "Now there is a new and profoundly rude way to announce a political divorce," wrote Williams.

"The bottom line is that Cantor's decision to abdicate any pretense of being a political leader set a trap for Boehner."

The political implications are also huge for Obama, who won't want to go into next year's election as the president who allowed the country to default.

A Gallup poll last week showed his approval rating has slumped to 45 percent, trailing his disapproval rating of 48 percent. A poll from The Hill earlier this month showed 48 percent of likely voters believe he has hurt the economy, and only 41 percent think he's helped it.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.


 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0








https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights

 

Know Your Rights!

https://www.eff.org/files/know-your-rights-privacy.pngBy Hanni Fakhoury, EFF Staff Attorney
June 2011

Know Your Rights Whitepaper (pdf)
EFF Police Tips (pdf)

Your computer, your phone, and your other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal information about you and your family. This is sensitive data that's worth protecting from prying eyes - including those of the government.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?

EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else.

Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney.

Q:

Can the police enter my home to search my computer or portable device, like a laptop or cell phone?

A:

No, in most instances, unless they have a warrant. But there are two major exceptions: (1) you consent to the search;1 or (2) the police have probable cause to believe there is incriminating evidence on the computer that is under immediate threat of destruction.2

 

Q:

What if the police have a search warrant to enter my home, but not to search my computer? Can they search it then?

A:

No, typically, because a search warrant only allows the police to search the area or items described in the warrant.3 But if the warrant authorizes the police to search for evidence of a particular crime, and such evidence is likely to be found on your computer, some courts have allowed the police to search the computer without a warrant.4 Additionally, while the police are searching your home, if they observe something in plain view on the computer that is suspicious or incriminating, they may take it for further examination and can rely on their observations to later get a search warrant.5 And of course, if you consent, any search of your computer is permissible.

 

Q:

Can my roommate/guest/spouse/partner allow the police access to my computer?

A:

Maybe. A third party can consent to a search as long as the officers reasonably believe the third person has control over the thing to be searched.6 However, the police cannot search if one person with control (for example a spouse) consents, but another individual (the other spouse) with control does not.7 One court, however, has said that this rule applies only to a residence, and not personal property, such as a hard drive placed into someone else's computer.8

 

Q:

What if the police want to search my computer, but I'm not the subject of their investigation?

A:

It typically does not matter whether the police are investigating you, or think there is evidence they want to use against someone else located on your computer. If they have a warrant, you consent to the search, or they think there is something incriminating on your computer that may be immediately destroyed, the police can search it. Regardless of whether you're the subject of an investigation, you can always seek the assistance of a lawyer.

 

Q:

Can I see the warrant?

A:

Yes. The police must take the warrant with them when executing it and give you a copy of it.9 They must also knock and announce their entry before entering your home10 and must serve the warrant during the day in most circumstances.11

 

Q:

Can the police take my computer with them and search it somewhere else?

A:

Yes. As long as the police have a warrant, they can seize the computer and take it somewhere else to search it more thoroughly. As part of that inspection, the police may make a copy of media or other files stored on your computer.12

 

Q:

Do I have to cooperate with them when they are searching?

A:

No, you do not have to help the police conduct the search. But you should not physically interfere with them, obstruct the search, or try to destroy evidence, since that can lead to your arrest. This is true even if the police don't have a warrant and you do not consent to the search, but the police insist on searching anyway. In that instance, do not interfere but write down the names and badge numbers of the officers and immediately call a lawyer.

 

Q:

Do I have to answer their questions while they are searching my home without a warrant?

A:

No, you do not have to answer any questions. In fact, because anything you say can be used against you and other individuals, it is best to say nothing at all until you have a chance to talk to a lawyer. However, if you do decide to answer questions, be sure to tell the truth. It is a crime to lie to a police officer and you may find yourself in more trouble for lying to law enforcement than for whatever it was they wanted on your computer.13

 

Q:

If the police ask for my encryption keys or passwords, do I have to turn them over?

A:

No. The police can't force you to divulge anything. However, a judge or a grand jury may be able to. The Fifth Amendment protects you from being forced to give the government self-incriminating testimony. If turning over an encryption key or password triggers this right, not even a court can force you to divulge the information. But whether that right is triggered is a difficult question to answer. If turning over an encryption key or password will reveal to the government information it does not have (such as demonstrating that you have control over files on a computer), there is a strong argument that the Fifth Amendment protects you.14 If, however, turning over passwords and encryption keys will not incriminate you, then the Fifth Amendment does not protect you. Moreover, even if you have a Fifth Amendment right that protects your encryption keys or passwords, a grand jury or judge may still order you to disclose your data in an unencrypted format under certain circumstances.15 If you find yourself in a situation where the police are demanding that you turn over encryption keys or passwords, let EFF know.

 

Q:

If my computer is taken and searched, can I get it back?

A:

Perhaps. If your computer was illegally seized, then you can file a motion with the court to have the property returned.16 If the police believe that evidence of a crime has been found on your computer (such as "digital contraband" like pirated music and movies, or digital images of child pornography), the police can keep the computer as evidence. They may also attempt to make you forfeit the computer, but you can challenge that in court.17

 

Q:

What about my work computer?

A:

It depends. Generally, you have some Fourth Amendment protection in your office or workspace.18 This means the police need a warrant to search your office and work computer unless one of the exceptions described above applies. But the extent of Fourth Amendment protection depends on the physical details of your work environment, as well as any employer policies. For example, the police will have difficulty justifying a warrantless search of a private office with doors and a lock and a private computer that you have exclusive access to. On the other hand, if you share a computer with other co-workers, you will have a weaker expectation of privacy in that computer, and thus less Fourth Amendment protection.19 However, be aware that your employer can consent to a police request to search an office or workspace.20 Moreover, if you work for a public entity or government agency, no warrant is required to search your computer or office as long as the search is for a non-investigative, work-related matter.21

 

Q:

I've been arrested. Can the police search my cell phone without a warrant?

A:

Maybe. After a person has been arrested, the police generally may search the items on her person and in her pockets, as well as anything within her immediate control.22 This means that the police can physically take your cell phone and anything else in your pockets. Some courts go one step further and allow the police to search the contents of your cell phone, like text messages, call logs, emails, and other data stored on your phone, without a warrant.23 Other courts disagree, and require the police to seek a warrant.24 It depends on the circumstances and where you live.

 

Q:

The police pulled me over while I was driving. Can they search my cell phone?

A:

Maybe. If the police believe there is probably evidence of a crime in your car, they may search areas within a driver or passenger's reach where they believe they might find it - like the glove box, center console, and other "containers."25 Some courts have found cell phones to be "containers" that police may search without a warrant.26

 

Q:

Can the police search my computer or portable devices at the border without a warrant?

A:

Yes. So far, courts have ruled that almost any search at the border is "reasonable" - so government agents don't need to get a warrant. This means that officials can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it.27 An international airport may be considered the functional equivalent of a border, even if it is many miles from the actual border.28

 

Q:

Can the police take my electronic device away from the border or airport for further examination without a warrant?

A:

At least one federal court has said yes, they can send it elsewhere for further inspection if necessary.29 Even though you may be permitted to enter the country, your computer or portable device may not be.

Want to test your new knowledge?
Take EFF's Know Your Digital Rights Quiz!

Need an easy way to remember your rights?
We have a handy one-page guide to help you talk to police if they come knocking. Print for your server room or workstation, or save it to your desktop for easy reference!

Want to learn more about how to protect yourself from unreasonable government snooping on your computer or portable electronic devices?

Then be sure to check out EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense Guide!

1.     1. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); United States v. Vanvilet, 542 F.3d 259 (1st Cir. 2008).

2.     2. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963); see also United States v. Vallimont, 378 Fed.Appx. 972 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished); United States v. Smith, 2010 WL 1949364 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).

3.     3. See Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84-85 (1987) (citing cases).

4.     4. See e.g., United States v. Mann, 592 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Brown v. City of Fort Wayne, 752 F.Supp.2d 925 (N.D. Ind. 2010).

5.     5. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990); see also United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981 (10th Cir. 2001); United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999).

6.     6. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990); United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711 (10th Cir. 2007).

7.     7. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).

8.     8. United States v. King, 604 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2010) (court approved search and seizure where two housemates shared a desktop computer, and one housemate granted the police access to the entire computer over the other housemate's objections, even though the objecting housemate was the sole owner of a hard drive in the computer).

9.     9. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(f)(1)(C).

10.  10. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).

11.  11. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e)(2)(A)(ii).

12.  12. See e.g., United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2006); In re Search of 3817 W. West End, First Floor Chicago, Illinois 60621, 321 F.Supp.2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2004); see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e)(2)(B).

13.  13. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) (maximum punishment for first offense of lying to federal officer is 5 or 8 years) with 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2) and (c)(2)(A) (maximum punishment for first offense of simply exceeding authorized computer access is generally 1 year).

14.  14. See United States v. Kirschner, 2010 WL 1257355 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2010) (unpublished) (relying on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)).

15.  15. See e.g., United States v. Hatfield, 2010 WL 1423103 (E.D.N.Y. April 7, 2010) (unpublished); In re Boucher, 2009 WL 424718 (D. Vt. Feb. 19, 2009) (unpublished).

16.  16. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).

17.  17. See 18 U.S.C. § 983, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.

18.  18. Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968); United States v. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2007).

19.  19. See e.g., Schowengerdt v. United States, 944 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1991).

20.  20. See Ziegler, 474 F.3d at 1191 (citing Mancusi).

21.  21. City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S.Ct. 2619 (2010); O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987).

22.  22. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).

23.  23. See e.g., United States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Wurie, 612 F.Supp.2d 104 (D. Mass. 2009); People v. Diaz, 51 Cal.4th 84, 244 P.3d 501 (2011).

24.  24. See e.g., United States v. Wall, 2008 WL 5381412 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 22, 2008) (unpublished); United States v. Park, 2007 WL 1521573 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2007) (unpublished); State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 920 N.E.2d 949 (2009).

25.  25. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009).

26.  26. See e.g., United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007); Wurie, 612 F.Supp.2d at 109-110; United States v. Cole, 2010 WL 3210963 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 11, 2010) (unpublished); United States v. McCray, 2009 WL 29607 (S.D.Ga. Jan. 5, 2009) (unpublished).

27.  27. United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004); United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005).

28.  28. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 (1973); United States v. Arnold, 533 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Roberts, 274 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 2001).

29.  29. United States v. Cotterman, 637 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2011).

 


 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.