[Homestead] sneak and peek - legally

Tvoivozhd tvoivozd at infionline.net
Wed Sep 22 20:57:16 EDT 2004


Daniel Van; Kelley wrote:

>>"Sneak-and-peek" searches are now easier to get, legal in all
>>    
>>
>jurisdictions, and the law contains no practical limit on how long
>authorities can delay notifying the subject of a search.
>  
>
>>    
>>
>
>tvoivozhd---hell, any and every District Attorney in the U.S. as far
>back as I can remember has a "Vest Pocket Judge" who will give him
>whatever he wants---and this extends to Grand Juries whom District
>Attornies manipulate outrageously and at will---the accused have no rights
>to appear in front of a Grand Jury to counter the D.A.'s often baseless
>propaganda..  Your Constitutional Rights are a fiction.
>
>
>Kelley----Wrong!!  Anyone, at any time, may submit to the Grand Jury a
>request to appear and present evidence or testimony.  The DA has no power to
>stop or interfere with the Grand Jury's decision to allow you to present
>your evidence or testimony before them.  This right of the people is well
>founded in our history and in our case law.
>  
>

tvoivozhd---but not in practice---a request is not an appearance, nor 
the right to appear as does exist before trial jiries. A District 
Attorney could get a carrot indicted if he looks sufficiently genial.

>No one has Constitutional Rights.  You do have Constitutionally Protected
>Rights.  The Constitution does not grant you any Rights.  The Constitution
>is intended to restrain government from violating the inalienable and
>inherent rights of all men.
>  
>

tvoivozhd---people have the illusion of Constitutionally Protected Right 
if government is not restrained, as it often is not.  Tell me about the 
marvelous restraint of government from violating Second Amendment 
rights---you ever hear of the Brady Bill?

>Your Rights are property like any other you may have.  If you don't know
>what they are and how to protect them, like any other property, someone will
>take them from you.
>  
>

tvoivozhd---again, how the hell do you defend yourself or your family 
from armed robbers with AK-47's since your old deer rifle has been 
reclassified as an "assault weapon' and hundreds of communities passed 
local laws requiring you to have a permit to own or carry a firearm 
within city limits? 

>It is easier to complain about Bush and what is going on in Washington, Iraq
>and etc. than it is to initiate a Recall of Locally Elected Officials.  Our
>city and county governments are in bed with the FED Gov and are facilitating
>and benefiting from the violation of your rights and the plundering of the
>fruits of your labor.  This is something you do have power over and can do
>something about.  Any elected official, if given the choice between facing a
>recall and doing what the people in the community want, is going to be
>keenly aware of your rights.  If you are to have your rights observed and
>enforced, that is where you do it first and that is how you send the message
>to Washington DC.
>
>Best Regards
>
>Daniel Van; Kelley
>  
>

tvoivozhd---that much is true.  I don't complain about Bush in that 
respect---living in  Crawford he isn't going to advocate victim 
disarmament.  The Brady Bill is going to expire and good riddance.  But 
living in Houston and the subject of half a dozen burglaries in one 
year, the Sheriff advised me if I chose to shoot an armed robber trying 
to break in my house through a front window, to drag him inside and make 
it look like I was under attack.  I might have to clean up a lot of 
broken  glass.

I approve of the local recall bit, though if it fails you can expect 
some pretty severe reprisal by the recallee---remember the old saw about 
if you try to kill the king, you better be successful.





More information about the Homestead mailing list