America's Police State, a World Infection

Montage of opinions on the Patriot Act



" ... maybe we can do stuff we wanted to do the last ten years."

Patriot Act - Hate Crimes Made Legal "Hold until clear policy"



A brief history of the Patriot Act, showing the many deceptions brought in by the Bush Administration, including: requesting total secrecy form public input and swapping at the last moment, the original Bill that Congress agreed to sign, with one manipulated by the Administration. The Administration's version of the Bill contained unconstitutional provisions that had been rejected earlier by Congress.

Regardless, Congress rushed to pass an otherwise, unread Bill which sought to greatly expand all federal law enforcement powers -- far beyond their intended means. Hence, America would later discover that the Patriot Act had little, if anything, to do with fighting the actual "war on terror" and much more to do with bypassing the civil protections, granted under the US Constitution.

1000's of individuals held without even being charged!

Patriot Act - Ethnic Cleansing Begins "Constitution: no person [not citizen] to be denied rights ..."



Remember when Hitler started rounding-up Jews? A similar nightmare took place in America, as the Patriot Act triggered an ethnic cleansing spree of government hate-crimes, amidst the panic of 9/11. US detention camps under operation.

Patriot Act - US Citizen Sentenced Without Evidence


The story of one US Citizen who was wrongfully detained without charges and later sentenced to jail without evidence. It is just one of the many examples of scapegoats produced by the ideological-hatred, indifference and incompetence reflected in both the 'under-the-table' Congressional agendas and the Bush Administration's controversial Patriot Act.

Bush/ Cheney Knee Deep - Senator Levin's Evidence to Impeach



FLASHBACK: Bush and Cheney's Pre-War (Iraq) Intelligence Report cover-up-crimes are brought to light by Senator Carl Levin.

Speech delivered before Congress on 09/08/06.

PNAC/ White House CIA Leak - Story of Joseph Wilson- "... disqualifies Bush as President ..."



Documentary: The story of the intentional White House leak against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and CIA Op, Valerie Plame.

Film: "The World According to Bush" [and his leader, Cheney]

The Neocons - Fear is the Only Agenda

From the ACLU

Real ID: Real Nightmare

Why Connecticut Should Take A Stand Against Real ID.

What is Real ID?

Congress passed the Real ID Act in May 2005 when congressional leaders inserted the legislation in a “must pass” Iraq War/Tsunami Relief supplemental funding bill. Congress did not hold a single hearing on the bill. The Real ID Act federalizes state driver’s licenses by imposing a broad array of regulations on how they are issued and verified – turning them into, for all practical purposes, America’s first-ever national identity cards. Every American will need this new federal identity document in order to enter federal buildings or fly on commercial airlines. With a growing number of states refusing to comply, airlines will face economic hardship if they are forced to refuse access to an entire state’s residents. States have until May 2008 to comply with the legislation. However, the Department of Homeland Security has yet to issue final rules, so no state knows how to comply. Driver licenses should be used to ensure drivers know the rules of the road and have insurance, not to create a national identification card used to track personal data and expand the serious risks of identity theft.

A Real Nightmare for State Government.

Under the Real ID Act, all 245 million existing driver’s license holders will have to apply in person for new licenses. Connecticut will have to remake its driver license, restructure its computer database, and – perhaps most difficult of all – verify the “issuance, validity and completeness” of every identity document presented at DMV offices, including birth certificates, social security cards, utility bills, immigration documents, and any other document that is part of the application. The law does not provide DMV with a way to compel any document issuer, such as utility companies, to cooperate with that verification. If DMV cannot verify documents, citizens will not get licenses.

Beware: The Real Cost of Real ID.

The National Governors’ Association, National Conference of State Legislators, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators have all found that Real ID would cost at least $11 billion to implement. Because Congress ordered but did not pay for these mandates, fees on individuals applying for driver’s licenses will inevitably rise, perhaps steeply. Maine - a state with a population one-third the size of Connecticut’s - has estimated its Real ID cost to be $185 million over 5 years.

A Real Nightmare for Citizens.

Many people who are citizens will not be able to get a Real ID. Some have lost personal records to fire, floods or other natural disasters (such as Hurricane Katrina). Across the country, government offices containing these records have been destroyed, putting millions at risk of being unable to track down birth documents from 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago. Millions of foreign-born U.S. citizens come from countries where no birth records are kept or are impossible to obtain. Some people do not even know where they were born, and some were born at home. Those who are elderly, disabled, poor, homeless or who have mental health issues will be directly affected, since many do not have access or the resources to obtain birth certificates or other approved documents. Without a Real ID, they may not be able to get essential public and private services.

A Real Nightmare for Consumers.

Real ID is a giant, unfunded federal mandate that will create enormous costs for states and consumers. Real ID will mean higher fees, increased taxes, long lines and bureaucratic nightmares for all of us. It will force multiple trips to the DMV office as well as hours on the phone trying to obtain original documents, imposing a substantial burden on all of us in cost and time off from work. And because Congress did not allocate funding for state implementation, the costs likely will be passed on to consumers through fees for new and replacement licenses.

A Real Nightmare of Identity Theft

DMV will be storing for up to 10 years copies of every birth certificate, Social Security card and other documents used to establish identity. Real ID requires all states to share a single database, making driver’s license information accessible from tens of thousands of locations across the country for the taking. Unlike the past, this database will now contain critical information such as your Social Security number, a gold mine for identity thieves. The growing consensus among security experts is that Real ID’s creation of a single interlinked database will be a one-stop-shop for personal data, making each of us a sitting duck for identity theft. In addition, if RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology is used, driver licenses can be read by anyone in close proximity who has an RFID reader.

A Real Nightmare of Privacy Invasion.

The Real IDs must include a “common machine-readable technology” that will allow for easy, computerized transfer of the data on the cards. That will make it easy for anybody in private industry to snap up the data on these Real IDs. Already, bars often swipe licenses to collect personal data on customers – but that will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg as every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Choicepoint (a private for-profit data mining company) for a dime. Even if the states and federal government successfully protect the data, it could be harvested by the private sector, which will build up a parallel database on Americans and put it up for sale, not subject even to the limited privacy rules in effect for the government.

Real ID Creates a National Identity Card

The standardized national driver’s licenses created by Real ID will become an “internal passport” that will increasingly be used to track and control United States citizens’ movements and activities. There will be a demand that you “show your papers.” And there is no recourse when the information entered on you is false. The Real ID database will inevitably, over time, become the repository for more data on individuals, and will be drawn on for an ever-wider set of purposes. Citizens who cannot obtain Real ID will encounter increasing set of barriers as the card is demanded before obtaining public and private services.

Real ID Turns DMV Offices into Immigration Enforcement Agencies.

The Act bars non-citizens from receiving driver licenses unless they can prove their lawful immigration status and identity. Real ID turns DMV offices into sub-branches of the immigration service, forcing clerks to decide who can or cannot be given a license - despite the complexity of our immigration laws, which rival that of our tax code. Training for motor vehicle employees could not possibly cover all of the technicalities of immigration law. Moreover, citizens who speak with an accent or are not fluent in English (who may “look” or “sound” “foreign”) may have their documents scrutinized with suspicion and be treated as suspects.

Real ID Will Not Protect Us From Terrorism

Determined terrorists will always be able to obtain fraudulent documents. Moreover, all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally and would have qualified for driver licenses under the Real ID Act.

Other States Are Rejecting Real ID.

On January 29, Maine became the first state to reject Real ID, when its legislature passed a resolution refusing to implement Real ID. Similar measures are under consideration in Arizona, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Missouri, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming.

REAL SOLUTION

Connecticut is not ready to implement Real ID. Without federal rules (and funding) necessary to implement the law and with Congress looking to fix or repeal Real ID in 2007, Connecticut should not pass piecemeal legislation this year. We should wait until the 2008 legislative session to take next steps.

For more information visit: www.realnightmare.org or call the ACLU-CT at 860-247-9823, x219.

Videotape police, risk arrest and having your life altered

Police and prosecutors have "open season" to waste taxpayer money and abuse citizens. Poorer Whites and minorities can be labeled criminals for life with little concern given by authorities for the devastation they leave behind.

I would have rather an abusive, out of control judge sawed my leg off than doing this [click] to me.


Francisco Acevedo Jr., 19, walks into Superior Court in Hartford on Feb.1. Acevedo was acquitted Thursday of disorderly conduct, stemming from a 2006 incident at Conard High School in West Hartford.
(PATRICK RAYCRAFT)

Feb. 1, 2007

Copyright 2007, Hartford Courant

CONNECTICUT NEWS
Acevedo Acquitted Of Disorderly Conduct
3:37 PM EST, February 15, 2007
By DAN JONES, Courant Staff Writer

A state judge Thursday acquitted Conard High School graduate Francisco Acevedo Jr., who was accused of disorderly conduct in June 2006 when he challenged an assistant principal's order to stop video-recording the arrest of another student.

Superior Court Judge Eliot D. Prescott granted a motion for acquittal, ruling that evidence presented earlier Thursday was insufficient for a reasonable person to find that Acevedo committed the alleged crime.

Acevedo, his mother, friends and his lawyer Jon Schoenhorn celebrated the ruling with smiles and pats on the back, as Prescott adjourned the court moments after the acquittal.

Acevedo, 19, says he video-recorded what he viewed as excessive force being used by a West Hartford police officer amidst the chaos sparked when unknown students released scores of crickets in the cafeteria as a senior prank. He put off the start of college to fight the charge.

A jury of six people -- four women and two men – heard testimony in the case, before the judge's ruling ended the court proceedings.

Acevedo, who has been working at a West Hartford gas station, has filed a federal lawsuit, claiming his constitutional free-speech rights were violated. He has claimed that school officials retaliated against him for a school walkout by more than 100 students that Acevedo led last May to protest harsh immigration laws.

A State's Greed and getting poorer Whites and Minorities off the road

Officials in States don't "care" about us, they are out to collect as much as possible in undeclared taxes. They reward their friends with cushy contracts and jobs with little work and high pay. More and more scams are needed to pay for the corruption and waste. Minorities and poorer Whites that can't pay traffic fines risk arrest, violation of probation, possible prison terms, and maybe a lifetime of not being legal to drive. Cell phone and other fines are just scams meant to perpetuate unfairness, racism, bias, separate and unequal, and make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

CONNECTICUT NEWS
Drivers Mailed $700K In Phone Fines
Cases Were Dropped Against 8,900 Others

February 13, 2007
By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer

The state took in more than $700,000 last year from people who didn't put up a fight and simply mailed in a $100 fine after being caught driving while talking on a hand-held cellphone, statistics show.

That amount could have been a lot more: Potential fines totaling $900,000 were not pursued because the state chose not to prosecute more than 8,900 other drivers who received tickets for cellphone violations and then showed up for court.

The reasons for not prosecuting the cases vary and are not broken down in statistics provided to The Courant by the state judicial branch.

State law allows first-time offenders to have the fine waived if they can prove they have purchased a hands-free accessory for their phone within 30 days of getting a ticket. In some cases, prosecutors may have accepted a driver's excuse for the violation or proof that using the cellphone was for an emergency allowable under the law.

Whatever the circumstance, the statistics related to enforcement of the law are sure to add grist to the debate over a legislative proposal to raise the fine for a cellphone violation to $250.

A bill calling for a higher fine is currently pending before the Transportation Committee, and one co-sponsor of the legislation is already reconsidering whether a higher fine is the way to go.

State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, who has been pushing the cellphone ban for nearly 10 years, said his first response to learning the amount of money collected in fines was sympathy for those who chose to pay.

"That's a lot of money, money that could be put to good use I'm sure by the people who were fined," Roy said.

Roy said Monday that he is second-guessing the proposal to raise the fine after numerous police officers contacted him about the bill. He now believes lowering the fine might be the better way to go.

"A seat belt violation is $37," Roy said. "One officer said he had no trouble giving out a $37 ticket, but he would have a lot trouble giving out a $200 fine for a cellphone. That takes food off people's tables."

Having a hefty fine wouldn't be effective if it wasn't enforced, Roy said.

Overall, statistics show that Connecticut law enforcement handed out more than 19,000 tickets for violating the state's cellphone ban in 2006, according to the judicial branch. Of that total, 8,901 people or 46.74 percent of those ticketed were not prosecuted.

Another 7,265 motorists, or about 38 percent of the total, pleaded "no contest" to the charge and mailed in a $100 fine. More than 1,800 drivers, about 9.5 percent of those ticketed, were found guilty of a cellphone violation after challenging their case in court. Only 1.5 percent or 285 people had their cases dismissed by a judge. Three people were found not guilty of a violation when they pursued their case in court.

Some 763 individuals, or about 4 percent of the total ticketed, failed to respond to their ticket by mailing in a fine or appearing in court and had their licenses suspended, judicial statistics show.

State Rep. Thomas J. Drew, D-Fairfield, who is co-sponsoring the raise-the-fine bill with Roy, said the statistics, although intriguing, do not tell the whole story.

"The big question here that is difficult to pick up in the statistics is how many times were there violations that police saw but did not issue a ticket?" Drew said. "What we want to do is cause people to comply with the law in the first place and find a sensible way for people to enforce the law in the second."

The president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, Norwalk Police Chief Harry W. Rilling, said he believes drivers will take the ban more seriously if they know they risk a substantial fine. He was less sure if it would increase enforcement, saying police officers try to maintain the ban along with a host of other - sometimes more urgent - responsibilities they face on their daily beat.

"The amount of the fine really wouldn't have an impact on a police officer's likelihood of enforcing the law," Rilling said. "What it would do is send a very clear message to those people ignoring the law that the legislature is serious about it and it would have a significant impact on them."

Contact Colin Poitras at cpoitras@courant.com.

Aaron Russo talks with IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen

Click here to watch the full movie: http://video.google.com/vid...

Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America.

Please suport this film, donate here:
http://www.freedomtofascism...

Aaron Russo talks with former Chief Counsel and IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen. Mr. Cohen also is the AUTHOR of the TAX CODE!

You WILL NOT believe what you hear! The US doesn't want you know know this!

Article XVI which gives the congress the "power" to have a federal income tax, was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court! How congress can ratify anything found UNCONSTITUTIONAL is BEYOND me!

http://www.claremont.org/wr...
The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to the explicit prohibition against direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power.

http://www.usconstitution.n...
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

http://www.answers.com/topi...
Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1909, and the states ratified it in 1913. The ratification of the amendment overturned an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision that had ruled a two percent federal flat tax on incomes over $4,000 unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759). Article I of the Constitution states that "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states ... according to their respective numbers."

What good is the constitution and the Supreme Court if the Senate and House and ratify anything found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL . It is the Supreme Courts duty to overturn this UNCONSTITUTIONAL ratification.

To watch the entire video, go to:
http://video.google.com/vid...