John's talk about home searches

B

Bambi

New Member
John's talk about home searches

John said a few things about home searches....



"Can you give us some personal stories of your past?


I was born in 1998 so I do share some childhood memories with all of you. I remember going to Disney World at Christmas and I remember going to the beach in Daytona. When the civil "conflict" started and got worse, people generally decided to either stay in the cities and lose most of their civil rights under the guise of security or leave the cities for more isolated and rural areas. Our home was searched once and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father to leave the city.


From the age of 8 to 12, we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined. My father made a living by putting together 12-volt electrical systems and sailing "commodities" up and down the coast of Florida. I spent most of my time helping him.


Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years. (Hearing in my right ear isn't as good as I would like it). The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe. As unusual and bad as my childhood might seem, I wouldn't trade it for anything. "


also:

"4. Yes civil liberties are more important. You will feel the same after having your house searched a couple of times"


Taken for Feb archive...


I was listening to my news today on this subject but can't find the article online but I did find this on freerepublic..


Cops Review Drug Raid Prompted By Power Bill
nbcsandiego.com ^ | 3 31 04 | nbcsandiego.com


Posted on 04/01/2004 6:21:29 AM PST by freepatriot32


CARLSBAD, Calif. -- Police will conduct an internal investigation into a raid at a home that was searched for marijuana because of a high electricity bill. No drugs were found.

Police Chief Thomas Zoll said Tuesday the department will review procedures that led to the March 19 to ensure similar incidents don't occur again.

Officers raided the home of Dina Dagy and her family because records indicated the family used three times more electricity than their neighbors.

Dagy attributed her high power bill to her three children, four ceiling fans, three computers, two to three daily loads of laundry and one to two daily dishwasher cycles.

High electricity bills often indicate that residents are using lamps to grow marijuana indoors, police said. The Dagy house was also targeted because a drug-sniffing dog responded to the home and the family put its trash out later than neighbors, which can indicate suspicious activity, police said.

Police raided 24 other homes the same day. They found marijuana in 20 homes and arrested 24 people.

The internal investigation is expected to take one to two weeks

freerepublic


Is this something we should keep an eye out for power companies reporting high usage of power to the police to have them barge in and searh our homes to find nothing totally freaking out families?? What and who else is reporting what we do in our homes to the police??? Makes me ill thinking about how innocent people are being affected like this!! :unsure:
 
John's talk about home searches

See what happens when your greedy? It ticks the powers that be off that they are not making the money on the vegetable sales. Solar powered panels are the only way to go.
 

John's talk about home searches

Well let's see... born in 1998, leaves the city at age 6 when the searches start. That makes it 2004.

Again, as with the "Waco" prophecy, we seem to be moving slowly toward a Titorism cancelled by passing current events. Widespread violation of the Fourth Amendment just hasn't happened in the way described; although, for some citizens, it has come close, and the Patriot Act makes it plausible.

Police have resorted to power consumption information to launch searches for years now, and the issue has been up and down the courts. It is nothing new, and is generally permitted under a Constitutional analysis.

What you need to be vigilant about is the situation in which your neighbor is targeted for a search on the basis that he puts his American flag upside down on his house, or has a Question Authority bumpersticker, or has had a letter to the editor published criticizing the government; or if he is rousted because he is for instance gay or an Arab or a member of the ACLU, or some combination of the three.
 

John's talk about home searches

From the age of 8 to 12, we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard.
Click to expand...


That would be 8 making it 2006. The only perdictions for 04 involved civil unrest around the election, which is happening. Of course, alot of people could have told you that back then too.
Phil
 
John's talk about home searches

I think a lot of civil unrest is occuring, and I am betting a lot of it is being left out of the major news. That way to make things seem more calm.
 
John's talk about home searches

Originally posted by DWOMT@Nov 9 2004, 09:50 AM
I think a lot of civil unrest is occuring, and I am betting a lot of it is being left out of the major news. That way to make things seem more calm.
​
Click to expand...

The Patton thing didn't work for Custer in the end.

What the government does with the news in a sensitive situation is very interesting. Look at Iraq: they allow reporters to be "imbedded" with the troops in combat, but evict them from the country if they say too much or the wrong thing. They want them to practically shout with orgiastic excitement on, e.g., Fox news, over troop advances, but grab the hospital in Fallujah so that "the enemy will not exaggerate casualty figures."

If Vietnam is any indication (and why wouldn't it be?), the military will edit casualty reports to reflect progress toward victory. How many Iraqis have died in this war? Fox will not report it; but will The New York Times?

Don't get me started on the domestic front. This administration's willingness to monkey with statistics and other facts is well-documented, whether it's in the area of rigged defense contracts or FDA research or environmental data. Of course, if the government were involved in an extensive program of deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendment, it would not have any qualms* about violating the First Amendment and the public's right to know.

This is why I brought up the example of the casualty figures in the Watts riots of 40 years ago-- they've never been corrected. The district court in Downey, just outside the riot zone, was used as a makeshift morgue and contained more than 50 bodies; all of the surrounding district courts were used likewise, amounting to between 200 and 300 dead, according to witnesses whose statements will never be published.

*Don't ask me what a "qualm" is.
 
John's talk about home searches

A qualm is the absence of common sense when mixed with ANY thing regarding the Constitution and you happened to be working for the legislative part of the government. On occasion, it has been likened to the aura of nothingness that occurs when a law that actually benefits the common man is considered and or to be voted upon, or when the logic and or actual evidence regarding a member of the House or a Congressman is so apparent it is undeniable. At present, there is no known cure for a qualm other than a radical employment change.
 
John's talk about home searches

Court OKs the seizure of weapons

A Pennsylvania appeals court upholds an order to search an alleged abuser's home.

By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER

[email protected]

In a decision that pits the rights of gun owners against domestic abuse victims, the state Superior Court has ruled a judge acted properly when he ordered law enforcement to search an alleged abuser's home and seize his weapons and those belonging to another family member.
The controversial 2-1 ruling, issued Thursday, also extends the ability of authorities to seek weapons of an alleged abuser. Previously, a judge could order weapons to be turned over, but did not have the authority to direct a search to ensure compliance.

The ruling was based on a Montgomery County case, but will have statewide impact because it expands the interpretation of the state's Protection From Abuse Act.

Ellen Harris, executive director of the Domestic Violence Service Center in Wilkes-Barre, applauded the decision.

\"Of the number of women, children and men killed as a result of domestic violence, more than half are killed by gunfire. It's important to protect lives before we protect guns.\"

At issue was a ruling on Oct. 13, 2003, by a Montgomery County judge in the case of James C. Mueller Sr., and his son, James Jr., who lived in the same home.

The junior Mueller's girlfriend had obtained a protection-from-abuse order against him after he allegedly pointed his father's loaded handgun at her and threatened to kill her.

Part of the order required Mueller to turn over that weapon and others. But when sheriff's deputies went to Mueller's home, he denied having any weapons. That led the judge to issue a separate order directing a search of Mueller's home and seizure of the weapons by force, if necessary.

In their appeal, Mueller and his father argued they were subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. They noted the state's Protection From Abuse Act does not specifically authorize the search of a home. They also argued the judge violated the father's rights.

The majority opinion, supported by Judges Patrick Tamilia and Correale Stevens, acknowledged the PFA act does not authorize searches. But, in what the judges admitted was \"an extraordinary case,\" they ruled county judges must be provided with flexibility to ensure the safety of domestic abuse victims.

The majority also acknowledged Mueller's father had committed no offense, but said the judge here had to include the father's weapons since the junior Mueller lived with him. \"If a court cannot reach weapons located wherever an abuser resides, it nullifies the preventive thrust of the most critical section of the act, that is, to disarm the abuser,\" Tamilia wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Morris Johnson said he believed the ruling went far beyond the bounds of the PFA Act and equated to a \"gross infringement on a constitutional right.\"
Click to expand...


This may not seem like much in and of it'self, but it is a precident for a home search based on far less than probable cause. Also it points out the long set precident for weapons confiscation without a conviction.
 
John's talk about home searches

According to some of the federal courts, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. According to others, there is such a right, but it has yet to be extended to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment as it would be if it were a fundamental right. According to many federal judges, the government is entitled to confiscate weapons if it has any reasonable basis for doing so.
 

Top