water

Shugar - I already provided you with multiple links that have been overturned in a court of law. I believe that would prove that SOME of these are instituted illegally, and that is my fear. I would come out clean, no worries, but I STILL would have to be subjected to the trauma as well as my 7 year old daughter... and my three sons all under the age of 12... is that ok?

I'm gonna boot "him" in the ass when I find him

But you aren't getting it sweetie pie shuger cube, warm cuddly bear, I MAY be a peace loving hippie, but I'm a hundred percent legal (no drugs, guns or contraband of any sort), and I shouldn't have myself or my family subjected to bullshit because other kids can't play nice in the sandbox.

why do ya'll wanna walk on me all the time???

http://www.landmarkcases.org/mapp/when.html <-fun Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act : http://www.aclu.org/natsec/spying/14454res20030510.html In State v. Garcia, 77 Hawai`i 461, 887 P.2d 671 (App. 1995), the ICA held that police officers executing a search warrant must expressly demand entrance, in addition to stating their authority and purpose, and that the officers must give the occupant a reasonable time to respond. http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/21761.htm THE STATE IS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO ALLOW FOR IMPROPERLY EXECUTED WARRANTS http://www.lawyers.com/ask_a_lawyer/q_and_a_archive/view_archive/index.php?QID=24-NOV-03&site=537 There are many other challenges that can be made to a search warrant. Not all of them, even if you prevail, will invalidate the search because of the good-faith doctrine that says that if police have a good faith belief but erroneous belief the warrant is valid, suppression of evidence is not required. However, improperly executed warrants, warrants issued upon bare bones affidavits and warrants issued upon affidavits containing intentional falsehoods and omissions by police usually fall outside the good faith exception. You should seek out an experienced criminal defense lawyer in your area and carefully review the search warrant, the affidavit, and the return that lists the items seized. He or she will be in the best position to advise you on the validity of the warrant and search. So NOW they have free reign???? http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-4243.htm Unbeknownst to the officers, on April 4, 1999, the Petersons leased the apartment. The Petersons began moving into the apartment on the following day. During this process, the officers "charged into the residence with guns drawn and with aggressive abrasiveness and demanded all persons get down on the floor." "At the time of the search, four occupants were identified of whom none were to be David Brown and Tarek Shejheur." Moreover, a moving van sat in front of the apartment, and the Petersons had unloaded only a few boxes into the otherwise empty apartment. The officers were then instructed that, as of April 4, the Petersons had signed a lease and moved into the residence. Despite this identification and instruction, the officers continued to search the residence and detain the Petersons. http://www.click2houston.com/news/9244926/detail.html?subid=10100242 "They're looking to document any Texas Southern University property. They had the intent to seize her computer, which is a Texas Southern University computer," Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said. "One of our investigators got a call from some people at the university that said some documents in the president's office were being shredded. I can't confirm that." Slade called her attorney before letting the officers inside her house. http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/trial/magistrate/benchbook/displayBenchBKcontent.cfm?division=CRIM&sec=C&subsection1=4&subsection2=d (3) Burden of Proof The burden of proving that the evidence was or was not legally seized will rest on the prosecution or defendant depending upon whether or not there was a warrant. If there was no warrant, the prosecution must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the search and seizure falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. If there was a warrant, the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the search and seizure were conducted under an invalid search warrant or that the valid warrant was improperly executed by the police office how do you do that if you aren't home? deemed unlawful: http://www.flsc.ca/en/whatsnew/court_maranda_Sum.asp The search and seizure were unreasonable and abusive within the meaning of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the breach of the duty to minimize and the failure to contact the lawyer. Firstly, the duty to minimize requires that a search not be authorized unless there is no other reasonable solution. Secondly, the authorization must be given in terms that, to the extent possible, limit the impairment of solicitor-client privilege. The search must be executed in the same way. In this case the application for authorization did not comply with the duty to minimize. It was neither alleged nor established that there was no other reasonable alternative and that the information sought could not be obtained using other sources. oh, but it's ok now???? A "tip" http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/661.htm Deputy Sheriff David Weigel testified at the suppression hearing that Barry Weigel had told him that the girls were under the influence of alcohol or drugs; that the girls had admitted to Barry Weigel that they had been drinking and had been using drugs at Schmeets' apartment; that the girls stated to Barry Weigel that they had witnessed a sale of cocaine at the apartment that afternoon; and that additional drugs were still in the apartment. Deputy Sheriff David Weigel then relayed this information by telephone to Wells County State's Attorney Clifford C. Grosz, who was in Harvey. State's Attorney Grosz prepared an affidavit for a search warrant and drove thirty miles to Fessenden to obtain the search warrant from Judge Samuel D. Krause. Deputy Sheriff David Weigel and State's Attorney Grosz met with Judge Krause at his home after twelve o'clock midnight on December 16, 1977. Deputy Sheriff Weigel signed the affidavit for a search warrant and Judge Krause issued a warrant to search the apartment of Ronnie Schmeets. The search warrant-was issued based upon Deputy Sheriff David Weigel's affidavit which states, in pertinent part: "That the Harvey Police had picked up to [sic] juveniles near the Harvey Grade school and that the said girls are under the influence of drugs and that they had -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [278 N.W.2d 405] obtained the drugs from a Terry Hager and a Ronnie Schmeets and that they were at the place of the above two individuals and they had stated that concaine [sic], hashish oil and Marijuana were at the place of 309 Adams, Ave., Harvey, N.Dak." Judge Krause testified at the suppression hearing that he had also relied upon certain unrecorded statements of Grosz and David Weigel that were not made under oath. http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/arrested_rights/wijesinha.html Appellant, a lawyer, offered to pay a police officer a referral fee for every client retained after failing a breathalyzer test. The constable reported the appellant's proposition to his superiors. A police investigation confirmed, by conversations intercepted through the use of a body pack, that three persons referred had been retained and that another officer was involved in the scheme. The police were given legal advice that this type of interception was constitutionally valid and that no criminal offence was being committed as long as witnesses were not being subverted. The police investigators called the Law Society Discipline Committee for advice, and although the police did not pursue their investigation of the appellant, they continued to communicate with and supply information to the Law Society. CORRUPTION? By judges and lawyers and cops? never! pfft! again THROWN OUT, but if my kids were there, they have to deal with it The point isn't whether these people were guilty, the point is that I AM NOT. And I don't want myself, my family, my neighbors.... to be SUBJECTED TO IT!

really? I'll have to do some research for you shuger cube

In the past, you had a right to make the police wait until you had a lawyer look at the warrant, and have them decipher everything. This was to insure the police only did what the judge authorized them to do. Now you can't make them wait, and you have to submit to them. We're losing our basic rights. I can't be comfortable with that. AND I can't do anything about it because it was voted in by 7 justices that i didn't have ANY say in electing. It's proof that government is taking over the United States when we were founded on freedom and democracy. NONE of the founding fathers intended for government to rule us, they intended for our country to be "A nation for the people by the people"... WHEN did that change? SO if my ex-husband walks out to hunt, and he's carrying a rifle, and some wacked out 90 year old bat who has nothing better to do than peer out her window, sees him and calls the cops about "a suspicious man walking across the street into a feild with a weapon" .. does that give the cops a right to come over and BUST in the HOUSE in front of our children and search the place for a weapon? It's wrong!

*shrugs* He's a businessman now, he doesn't need to bother with the daily grind right? If I was as brilliant as he was to capitalize on everything he has, I would prolly do it too.... unfortunately he has forgotten what it's like to be the little guy, and I doubt "semi-retiring" is going to change that....

You can get a warrent based on a lot of bad information. THat's why it's a warrant and not an arrest. But your family is still subjected to all that. It makes me........ nervous, I don't want cops busting in here ... I have nothing to hide, but it would still be traumatic.

really great. And thanks for asking... But doesn't it bother you that you have the ability and the responsibility to change the channel on the TV or radio, and yet you aren't given the choice of what you're allowed to hear or see now? Granted, this is an example that is way out there, but weren't we built on freedom and personal responsibility?

The debate comes up when there is anonymous tips. What if someone hated you and told the policw you were a pot dealer... then they come to your house with a warrant, break in the door, wreck the place looking for drugs and tramatize your kids, wife, husband... whatever.... Can you GET OVER that kind of Gestapo tactic?

Police don't have to knock, justices say Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices. The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. *more in the article* anyone have a problem with this? No lawyer has to be present to insure that the warrant is legal, or that they are only allowed to search for cetain things or in certain areas?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/15/broadcasting.fines.reut/index.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush Thursday signed into law legislation that raises fines tenfold on radio and television broadcasters that violate U.S. decency standards by airing extensive profanity or sexual content. The new law, which boosts fines to as much as $325,000 per violation from $32,500, could help congressional Republicans woo conservatives in a tough election year as they have faced ebbing support from key core constituencies. *more in article* Those restrictions do not apply to cable or satellite services. That prompted radio shock jock Howard Stern to move his show to satellite radio to avoid the federal regulations since his antics led to fines against stations that aired his show. This law doesn't apply to us on SS, so we still get to be naughty! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! *dances*

Dude, gotta tell you, your space looks great. good job!

That would be tdawnaz who edited your post, and the reason why was to insure you read the rules and refrain from breaking them in the future. If you have a question as to the specific rule, I suggest you PM her.

oh that... didn't know what it was all about, I just igured that was where you made the people and words and stuff...

the bottles flying through the air?

Yeah, I watched it for 5 minutes, there were a lot of names....

yeah, but I'm not wearing pants It's VERY cool resopalrabotnick *nods*

Wow, that was great, but there ain't even 1 girl on there !!!!

Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday muscle car lovin guy.... Happy Birthday to you! /happy_bday.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':bday:' />:' />

paypal site is www.paypal.com to set it up - Click on sign up and it walks you through, used world wide, converts monetary values, ethical company and trusted AKA no bullshit, good luck.

I spend entirely too much time here anymore.... Hey, waterRTBH, you have 0 messages, 0 are new. Total time logged in: 8 days, 12 hours and 15 minutes. Show unread posts since last visit. Show new replies to your posts.

awwwwwwwwwww, ya know........... I am so stealing the monster truck next door People, when you see a video of someone who looks like Tommie crushed by giant wheels from hell, that was me in a moment.... and not a rare moment

actually, it's really a good song, I sing it throughout the day he's a freak, but a damn talented one!