Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:1391 misc.legal:23907 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: Re: Sophistication of federal investigators Message-ID: <3695@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 14 Jan 91 14:06:35 GMT References: <1991Jan10.035939.26587@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <286@kumr.UUCP> <663830222.20770@mindcraft.com> Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Lines: 84 In article <663830222.20770@mindcraft.com>, karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes: > In article <1991Jan14.032648.5638@cbnewsh.att.com> wcs@cbnewsh.att.com > ](Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs) writes: > ]In article <1991Jan13.191251.28841@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM > ](Karl Denninger) writes: > ]]This problem has to be stopped AT THE SOURCE. Legislation has to be > ]]introduced, pushed and passed that strengthens the individual's rights > ]]against our marauding government. [ ... ] > ]]Pre-trial seizure of assets, in ALL facets of society, has to > ]]be outlawed without exception. Just recompense needs to be made available... > > ]Of course you're correct. But there are a bunch of things that can > ]be done to help the problem: > ]- educating the public about the abuses of government > ]- educating the legislators about the unwillingness of the public to > ] accept this "long train of abuses". > ]- defending individuals against harassment > ]- making it clear to the Polizei that they can't win all the time, > ] and making it expensive for them, in time, money, and reputation. > ]- suing them successfully when they violate the laws in actionable ways. > ] > ]Part of this is done by education and lobbying, but a major technique > ]is to start defending people, and winning, one case at a time. > > Remember, we're talking about taking significant discretionary power > away from the executive branch. This requires real, goal-oriented > political action; `education' programs don't cut it. We are not talking about reducing the discretionary powers of the executive. We are talking about reducing harassment and abuse of power. This starts out at the low end with giving tickets for which the cost of fighting the ticket is greater than the cost of paying it. Pulling drivers over on groundless suspicion, and causing them a loss of time, is another. A high end example is that of government agents pressuring DeLorean by threats into agreeing to participate in a drug operation; the subsequent prosecution and trial broke up his marriage and cost millions of dollars. > The ACLU has been using all the suggested approaches for as long as > it's been in existence. Even so, the government continues to chip away > at the Bill of Rights. The ACLU has been using a few of the approaches in sometimes upholding some of the Constitutional rights, mainly in criminal trials. It ignores many of the rights, and has done little about the harassment issue. > Let's not kid ourselves about the magnitude of this task. It'll be a > long time before large numbers of voters start asking their > representatives `what have you done to defend civil rights' before they > ask `what have you done for me lately'. The problem is one of immunity. Only recently has the Supreme Court allowed prosecution of individual members of local executives, and city and county governments, for actual physical damages. Recently, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a judgment against the mayor of Gary and one other official for refusing to grant pistol carry permits. I believe that this is the first case of this kind. At the present time, a prosecutor risks nothing for such harassment unless s/he harasses a popular person or group. A policeman is at little risk for harassment, or even false arrest. Now I am quite willing to believe that John Gotti (reputed to be the Mafia boss) is every bit as bad as the prosecutors claim he is, but that does not give them the moral right to keep bringing him to trial on extremely flimsy, at best, charges. To protect the public, there has to be some executive immunity. But at least loss of government employment rights should be in place for those who are not most circumspect. As the late John W Campbell states, It is not power that corrupts, it is immunity. I would suggest that a start toward this would be that if a police officer shows the slightest disrespect to someone in the line of duty (no, I do not mean whether or not he uses "sir") this should mean automatic suspension without pay for the first offense. This should continue up the line. The onus should be on the individual; it is no good to impose penalties on organizations. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)