Judge details abuse of power cases.
- Thread starter Warren
- Start date
- Status
El Tejon
Member
Where has this guy been? The War on Drugs is how old? 
This isn't exactly news, judge.
This isn't exactly news, judge.
[BLOCKQUOTE]
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9382
Federal Observer
February 26, 2005
Vol. 05, No. 56
Napolitano: How the Government Breaks the Law
By Andrew P. Napolitano
It should be against the law to break the law. Unfortunately, it is not. In early 21st-century America, a dirty little secret still exists among public officials, politicians, judges, prosecutors, and the police. The government - federal, state, and local - is not bound to obey its own laws. I know this sounds crazy, but too many cases prove it true. It should be a matter of grave concern for every American who prizes personal liberty.
When I became a judge in New Jersey, I had impeccable conservative Republican law-and-order credentials. When I left eight years later, I was a born-again individualist, after witnessing first-hand how the criminal justice system works to subvert and shred the Constitution. You think you’ve got rights that are guaranteed? Well, think again.
. . .
As a judge, I once heard an infuriating case involving the owner of a small Italian restaurant, an immigrant from Italy who was visited by two well-dressed gentlemen who introduced themselves and asked for weekly payments of a hundred dollars. In return, they promised the restaurant owner that his garbage would be collected on time, he would not have any trouble with labor unions, he would not be the victim of any crime, and no competing restaurant would open in his neighborhood.
He threw them out.
They returned unannounced about six times and every time their demands increased, eventually to a thousand dollars a week, each. After he rebuffed that demand, they said they’d be back the following week with guns, and he’d better get one. Terrified of this threat, and afraid as most immigrants are to involve the police, the restaurant owner borrowed a friend’s gun.
When the two gentlemen returned and asked if he had a gun, the restaurant owner reached into a drawer, pulled out the gun, and pointed it at them. They immediately slapped handcuffs on him! Unbeknownst to him, they were New Jersey state troopers who were trying to either shake him down for money or coerce him into breaking the law.
His prosecution for carrying a gun was assigned to me, along with a similar case involving a nearby Italian bakery.
Before the cases began, I ordered the troopers to appear in my courtroom, to inquire if their schemes were self-directed or authorized by their supervisors. They refused to be so interrogated, whereupon the prosecutors asked me to dismiss both cases, which I did.
The bakery owner was so delighted, he proclaimed in a classic Sicilian accent: “The Judga, he can eata for free for the resta his life!†I never took the owner up on his offer, but I appreciated his sentiments.
. . .
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9382
Federal Observer
February 26, 2005
Vol. 05, No. 56
Napolitano: How the Government Breaks the Law
By Andrew P. Napolitano
It should be against the law to break the law. Unfortunately, it is not. In early 21st-century America, a dirty little secret still exists among public officials, politicians, judges, prosecutors, and the police. The government - federal, state, and local - is not bound to obey its own laws. I know this sounds crazy, but too many cases prove it true. It should be a matter of grave concern for every American who prizes personal liberty.
When I became a judge in New Jersey, I had impeccable conservative Republican law-and-order credentials. When I left eight years later, I was a born-again individualist, after witnessing first-hand how the criminal justice system works to subvert and shred the Constitution. You think you’ve got rights that are guaranteed? Well, think again.
. . .
As a judge, I once heard an infuriating case involving the owner of a small Italian restaurant, an immigrant from Italy who was visited by two well-dressed gentlemen who introduced themselves and asked for weekly payments of a hundred dollars. In return, they promised the restaurant owner that his garbage would be collected on time, he would not have any trouble with labor unions, he would not be the victim of any crime, and no competing restaurant would open in his neighborhood.
He threw them out.
They returned unannounced about six times and every time their demands increased, eventually to a thousand dollars a week, each. After he rebuffed that demand, they said they’d be back the following week with guns, and he’d better get one. Terrified of this threat, and afraid as most immigrants are to involve the police, the restaurant owner borrowed a friend’s gun.
When the two gentlemen returned and asked if he had a gun, the restaurant owner reached into a drawer, pulled out the gun, and pointed it at them. They immediately slapped handcuffs on him! Unbeknownst to him, they were New Jersey state troopers who were trying to either shake him down for money or coerce him into breaking the law.
His prosecution for carrying a gun was assigned to me, along with a similar case involving a nearby Italian bakery.
Before the cases began, I ordered the troopers to appear in my courtroom, to inquire if their schemes were self-directed or authorized by their supervisors. They refused to be so interrogated, whereupon the prosecutors asked me to dismiss both cases, which I did.
The bakery owner was so delighted, he proclaimed in a classic Sicilian accent: “The Judga, he can eata for free for the resta his life!†I never took the owner up on his offer, but I appreciated his sentiments.
. . .
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
Golden Saber
Member
Has anyone read his book, "Constitutional Chaos"?
By the way, the Judge is adamantly individual right, pro-2nd Amendment.
By the way, the Judge is adamantly individual right, pro-2nd Amendment.
Fletchette
Member
I have read a few chapters and am so far very impressed. I hope more judges and others associated with the justice system would speak out.
ugh...
>>>an immigrant from Italy who was visited by two well-dressed gentlemen who introduced themselves and asked for weekly payments of a hundred dollars. In return, they promised the restaurant owner that his garbage would be collected on time, he would not have any trouble with labor unions, he would not be the victim of any crime, and no competing restaurant would open in his neighborhood<<<
Those @$$*)(*)les should have been shot on the first "visit". It would have saved alot of time, effort, heartache and set an example to others. Who cares if they were cops. They were attempting to extort / set up / scare the defenseless!!! This type of issue is WHY we have a 2nd ammendment!!! NOT identifiying themselves as police officers and then threatening someone who is defenseless too the point in which they are forced to arm themselves??? GMAFB!!!!! I am ***SURE*** if they were shot in the line of "duty" they would have been given a round of applause up and down while the poor guy that owns the shop and who was actually THREATENED would be taken to the cleaners.
This whole thing stinks.....all involved and that had knowledge of this should be ashamed. Their precious little pensions should be swallowed up as well.....I'll get off the soap box now, but too often this is becoming commonplace.
And just think......this is ***ALL*** in the name of tax collection, not law enforcement. This is selling out ones badge to it's furthermost extream!!!
However....on that negative note I've had the privilidge of dealing with *some* very wonderful people in the field on a regular basis. They would not tolerate this!
>>>an immigrant from Italy who was visited by two well-dressed gentlemen who introduced themselves and asked for weekly payments of a hundred dollars. In return, they promised the restaurant owner that his garbage would be collected on time, he would not have any trouble with labor unions, he would not be the victim of any crime, and no competing restaurant would open in his neighborhood<<<
Those @$$*)(*)les should have been shot on the first "visit". It would have saved alot of time, effort, heartache and set an example to others. Who cares if they were cops. They were attempting to extort / set up / scare the defenseless!!! This type of issue is WHY we have a 2nd ammendment!!! NOT identifiying themselves as police officers and then threatening someone who is defenseless too the point in which they are forced to arm themselves??? GMAFB!!!!! I am ***SURE*** if they were shot in the line of "duty" they would have been given a round of applause up and down while the poor guy that owns the shop and who was actually THREATENED would be taken to the cleaners.
This whole thing stinks.....all involved and that had knowledge of this should be ashamed. Their precious little pensions should be swallowed up as well.....I'll get off the soap box now, but too often this is becoming commonplace.
And just think......this is ***ALL*** in the name of tax collection, not law enforcement. This is selling out ones badge to it's furthermost extream!!!
However....on that negative note I've had the privilidge of dealing with *some* very wonderful people in the field on a regular basis. They would not tolerate this!
Andrew Napolitano? Is that the same Andrew Napolitano that went on John Gibson's show on Fox News, and said the USA-PATRIOT Act gave FBI agents the authority to write and serve warrants without establishing PC to a magistrate, and the magistrate wasn't required sign the warrant? Which is not correct at all, as there is aboslutely nothing in the USA-PATRIOT Act that would circumvent the requirements of the 4th Amendment to have a warrant based on PC and signed by a judge.
If we're talking about the same Andrew Napolitano then I'm having hard time believing anything he says.
Just call me Thomas, and assume I'm from Missouri.
If we're talking about the same Andrew Napolitano then I'm having hard time believing anything he says.
Just call me Thomas, and assume I'm from Missouri.
I agree...
DMF....
>>>If we're talking about the same Andrew Napolitano then I'm having hard time believing anything he says.
<<<
I agree, the guy wants alot of things both ways. He's very brilliant in how he explains things on one side but then on the opposite end of the spectrum he wants things another. He's very odd in some respects.
He DOES however need to cite how, when and where he got information on things that actually occured in his book. It would make everything alot more believable instead of just good story telling and spewing two and fro.
DMF....
>>>If we're talking about the same Andrew Napolitano then I'm having hard time believing anything he says.
<<<
I agree, the guy wants alot of things both ways. He's very brilliant in how he explains things on one side but then on the opposite end of the spectrum he wants things another. He's very odd in some respects.
He DOES however need to cite how, when and where he got information on things that actually occured in his book. It would make everything alot more believable instead of just good story telling and spewing two and fro.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Now Wildalaska will chime in to discredit the judge.
Old Dog
Member
I'll beat WA to the punch ... the judge definitely has an agenda. Go beyond the article and do some research on this guy. Takes a handful of high-profile screwups and uses these examples to paint the whole system with that broad brush.
OK, apologists, please comment on Judge Merrero's decision related to the unconstitutionality of section 505 of the Patriot Act, 9/28/2004. related to National Security Letters This is what Judge Napolitano may have been referring to?
link: http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0412/041228.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not surprisingly, .gov wanted to keep this whole thing a secret...link: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10432
Re: credibility...
DNF?? Is that the same DNF who claimed that the BATF was instrumental in the conviction of Eric Rudolph???
Quite a trick, seeing how Rudolph was captured by local PD whilst dumpster diving; and has yet to face trial!!!
DNF posted:
link: http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0412/041228.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not surprisingly, .gov wanted to keep this whole thing a secret...link: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10432
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: credibility...
DNF?? Is that the same DNF who claimed that the BATF was instrumental in the conviction of Eric Rudolph???
Quite a trick, seeing how Rudolph was captured by local PD whilst dumpster diving; and has yet to face trial!!!
DNF posted:
Other nicknames might be more appropriate.
2nd Amendment
member
You should have expected the resident Statists to show up. We have a half-dozen or so whose only purpose in being here(a couple of them literally don't show up except for this) is to denigrate any thought or opinion outside the official government line. Police make no mistakes, government is never corrupt, those who think otherwise are tin-hat wearing Extremists unfit for Citizenship.
On Napolitano, he's certainly got an agenda. One that has crystalized fairly well as he ages: Trotting out the sytemic corruption that defines government in the US today. A "few high profile cases"? *LMFAO* The only place "few" could be applied is to those instances where the legalist system actually works correctly these days.
On Napolitano, he's certainly got an agenda. One that has crystalized fairly well as he ages: Trotting out the sytemic corruption that defines government in the US today. A "few high profile cases"? *LMFAO* The only place "few" could be applied is to those instances where the legalist system actually works correctly these days.
Well hammer that other thread got closed before I got to apologize for my oversight. You are in fact correct that Rudolph's lawyers have continued to use every tactic available to avoid going to trial. I made a mistake, and should have said, ATF has built an airtight case against Rudolph, whose lawyers are desperately trying to avoid trial in hopes the government will accept a deal that will eliminate the death penalty.
However there is MUCH more to the Rudolph case than his physical capture while dumpster diving. ATF has done the investigation that ties Rudolph to those bombings and show that he is guilty. There would be no reason for Rudolph to have been a fugitive or to be dumpster diving, had the ATF not put together a case that showed he was the guilty party.
Unlike the professional propaganda masters I'm willing to own up to my errors, and unlike the professional propaganda masters I was not intentionally trying to deceive anyone.
Also, no Napolitano was not referring to "National Security Letters" he specifically stated search warrants that would allow the FBI to search a person's home without a warrant signed by a judge. Which is a bunch of BS.
However there is MUCH more to the Rudolph case than his physical capture while dumpster diving. ATF has done the investigation that ties Rudolph to those bombings and show that he is guilty. There would be no reason for Rudolph to have been a fugitive or to be dumpster diving, had the ATF not put together a case that showed he was the guilty party.
Unlike the professional propaganda masters I'm willing to own up to my errors, and unlike the professional propaganda masters I was not intentionally trying to deceive anyone.
Also, no Napolitano was not referring to "National Security Letters" he specifically stated search warrants that would allow the FBI to search a person's home without a warrant signed by a judge. Which is a bunch of BS.
2nd Amendment
member
Various forms of warrantless "searches" have been a staple of government for decades. Well, always actually, but we'll stick to the modern aspects:
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIf.htm
http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2003/030320LD.asp
Discussion of "emergency" warrantless searches and seizures(which of course begs the obvious question of the maleability of the word "emergency"):
http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/survive/searches.txt
I'll dig around more later. There's plenty out there for those who wish to look...
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIf.htm
http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2003/030320LD.asp
Discussion of "emergency" warrantless searches and seizures(which of course begs the obvious question of the maleability of the word "emergency"):
http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/survive/searches.txt
I'll dig around more later. There's plenty out there for those who wish to look...
No prob, dmf, I'm sure you're keeping up with current events on the Rudolph case. Curiously, many of the issues thrown up by the defense have to do with the FBI whistleblower Frederick Whitehurst. Why did FBI pay out over $1million to this former employee? Hush money? He raises some interesting issues, though.
Link:http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/08/rudolph.fbi.whistleblower/
Much of this stuff is pretrial defense maneuvering, who knows what'll ultimately stick. However, it sure doesn't sound the the makings of an "airtight case". I don't think I'd like to be in Mr. Whitehurst's shoes leading up to the trial...
Reference is being made to an internal audit of ATF forensics lab done recently. Looks like they got less than stellar marks. Curiously, details about this internal audit are not available on the web.
Perhaps, with your extensive inside contacts, dmf, you could help us out by summarizing the key findings in this report. Start a new thread if you like. Or we can wait to hear them in the Rudolph trial, if details are not quashed before being made public?
Link:http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/08/rudolph.fbi.whistleblower/
Much of this stuff is pretrial defense maneuvering, who knows what'll ultimately stick. However, it sure doesn't sound the the makings of an "airtight case". I don't think I'd like to be in Mr. Whitehurst's shoes leading up to the trial...
Reference is being made to an internal audit of ATF forensics lab done recently. Looks like they got less than stellar marks. Curiously, details about this internal audit are not available on the web.
Perhaps, with your extensive inside contacts, dmf, you could help us out by summarizing the key findings in this report. Start a new thread if you like. Or we can wait to hear them in the Rudolph trial, if details are not quashed before being made public?
Maybe not your home, but any records kept about you. They don't need a warrant, all they have to do is tell a secret FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) judge that they are investigating you and under the modifications of USA PATRIOT Act Section 215, the judge has no discretion about whether to issue the order (he must) and the FBI does not have to show any evidence.
The administration made a tactful statement in saying that 'judicial orders' were involved in searches under the USA PATRIOT Act, but what they omitted was the little detail that the secret judges cannot deny any search order if the FBI tells them the subject is under any sort of investigation.
Oh and then there's the nice gag order that goes along with these requests that prevents whatever business/entity from telling anyone that they received the order.
- Status