Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country December 20, 1996 #14 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html. ---------------------------------------------------------- LEGAL MURDER The 1985 abduction, rape and murder trial of a young girl from a Chicago suburb is in the news again. When it happened, it was the type of heinous crime that shocked the public conscious in the wealthy Chicago suburbs. It was a crime that made the public demand swift retribution. So, the police went out and caught some "perpetrators." The prosecutor successfully prosecuted them, and the judge sentenced two of them to death. The problem is, the ones convicted didn't do it. In fact, in 1985, another man -- who was already serving a life sentence for the rapes and murders of a 7-year old girl and a 27-year old woman -- admitted to his lawyer that he was the lone killer. But, prosecutors hid that and other exculpatory information from the defense team. The prosecutors wanted a death sentence, and the man who confessed would not formally tell authorities his story unless they promised not to seek the death penalty. So, investigators contrived some evidence and railroaded the other guys. "Testilying" is the new term for it. That's becoming rather common nowadays. The convicted appealed, of course. Mary Brigid Kenney, of the Illinois attorney general's office was charged with fighting the appeals of one of the men. She looked at the evidence, found it stunk to high heavens, and, in 1992, ended up resigning her position in protest. She said the state was trying to kill an innocent man. Later, DNA tests proved that the men convicted were, at least, not the rapists. Then one of the sheriff's deputies originally investigating the case recanted his testimony. He said that he had originally testified falsely. In other words, he lied! Eventually, there was an acquittal. And more. . . . A special prosecutor, William J. Kunkle, was put in charge to investigate this mess, and a grand jury formed. And . . . well, well . . . last week, they indicted three former DuPage County assistant prosecutors and four sheriff's deputies for conspiracy and obstruction of justice in the wrongful murder conviction. "In a free society there must always be a line between vigorous prosecution and official misconduct, between advocacy and unfairness, and between justice and injustice," the special prosecutor said as he announced the indictments of the lying officials. "This indictment charges that line was crossed by seven people." Yup. And they should all get natural life in prison for it, too. They did, after all, conspire to use the law to murder two innocent men. And they're probably still doing that type of thing. One of the former prosecutors is now a DuPage County judge and another is an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago. Needless to say, many prosecutors are a bit worried. They're supposed to be legally untouchable for their official actions, you see. For instance, the current DuPage County State's Attorney, Joseph E. Birkett, was quoted by the New York Times as saying the indictments will have a chilling effect on prosecutors everywhere. "Charging prosecutors for conduct in the performance of their duties is unheard of," Birkett said. "If this type of allegation can be made, prosecutors will have to second guess everything they do." Exactly! And it's about damn time. The type of "law enforcement" Birkett supports is both un-American and un-Constitutional. What Birkett and most prosecutors in the country forget is that their function in government is to protect all rights of all people all of the time. And that includes those accused of a crime. Instead, they take an adversarial position in most cases -- let the accused fend for himself. Worse, many regularly allow -- and even encourage -- perjury by police officers and other witnesses. A few police officers have been convicted for perjury before. Now it's time to start on their leaders: The prosecutors. Any public official knowingly accusing an American citizen falsely of a crime should go to prison. Yes, this case should send a message to prosecutors across the country, all right. And that message is way, way overdue! MONEY AS SPEECH Campaign finance laws are a farce. So, Congress is considering further restrictions on third parties' sources of contributions. You know, political action committees, unions, law firms and such. Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ) have already promised to introduce legislation to ban political action committees, require that 60% of money raised in a congressional race comes from within that district, and limit campaign spending. Still, that won't work. All money -- 100% of it -- should come from registered voters within the congressional district. Constituents in the districts elect them. Therefore, those elected must be beholden only to constituents for their campaign finances. All other campaign contributions should be made totally illegal. And, there should be a spending cap; say a maximum of one dollar for each vote in the previous election. That will give challengers a better chance, as well as keep the incumbents closer to the people. RETROACTIVE LAWS ARE ILLEGAL All retroactive laws are unconstitutional. Supposedly, we are protected against such heavy-handed political impositions. Our social compact with government, the United States Constitution, forbids such actions by government. That is, if We the People are willing to enforce the issue. First, we should ask our Representatives and Senators if they intend to honor their oath of office. You know, the one where they swear to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. . . . Then, ask your Member of Congress to read Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Laws shall be passed." This sentence should be pretty clear -- even to a Member of Congress or a Congressional aide -- since the operative word here is "No." The other operative words of interest to us are the Latin words "ex post facto" -- which is legalese for criminalizing an innocent action and then, retroactively, punishing it as a crime. In the Federalist Papers (#44) James Madison wrote: "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation." Alexander Hamilton expanded on that thought in Federalist #84 when he wrote: "The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." In other words, according to Madison, passing a retroactive law violates every principle of sound legislation, and he expected American legislators to know better. Hamilton, however, was a little more blunt. "Tyranny," he calls it. Even before the Federalist papers, Sir William Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on the Law," was quite clear in his opinion of ex post facto laws: "These are wholly unreasonable," he began the section. Blackstone then contends that all laws should be passed, and the people notified, well in advance of their effective date. During the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, feared that even "to put the ex post facto provision in the Constitution might proclaim that we are ignorant of the first principles of Legislation, or are constituting a Government which will be so." William Samuel Johnson, a delegate from Connecticut, thought the clause "unnecessary, and implying an improper suspicion of the National Legislature." They too thought American legislators would know better. Apparently, though, they didn't anticipate the type of politicians we have running the government in Washington today. Some lawyers say the ex post facto provision only applies to criminal law. The United States Supreme Court, however, said otherwise. The ex post facto provision applies to any law imposing a penalty. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we're talking about a tax package, environmental laws, rules and regulations, or gun laws. If the law, rule or regulation is retroactive it is, as James Madison instructs "contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation." Or, it is, as Alexander Hamilton puts it: "Tyranny." Tell them so. MADISON WARNED US "What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?" asked James Madison in 1787. His words ring very true again today. Later, in The Federalist #44 he wrote, "The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." Madison was writing about the capricious legislative actions of Great Britain. But, if we rewrote that in modern English, most Americans would identify it as describing today's federal government. A few years ago, Business Week reported that there are more than 100,000 new laws, rules and regulations enacted in the United States each year. Between 1976 and 1986, state legislatures alone made up 248,000 new laws. And, on average, each of these laws spurred at least ten new regulations. And that's only the state governments, folks. The federal government is even worse. There are over 11,585 pages of IRS regulations, 11,270 pages of regulations for Agriculture, 11,808 pages for the EPA, and 5,368 for Labor, to name just a few affecting our personal activities. A quick look in a public library showed 211 fat books containing 122,027 pages of Federal regulations directly affecting American citizens. That's 122,027 pages of regulations alone, folks, not laws passed by Congress. And, we're responsible for obeying every damn one of them! When you also factor in federal laws, this gets way, way out of hand. The most important function of government is the protection of the people -- to protect the free exercise of our rights and liberties. Instead, legislators and regulatory agencies seem to be trying to classify every known human activity as either prohibited or mandatory. Worse yet, any of these rules and regulations can be arbitrarily enforced on an unsuspecting citizen at any time. And, although they might be officially labeled rules and regulations by legislators, to the citizen they have the full force of law. After all, what happens if you break one of these little bureaucratic jewels? Agents with guns come after you and courts fine you and/or put you in prison, that's what! Madison was right. An over regulated society is not conducive to business -- and hence, to building wealth within that society. These actions by the federal government are, in effect, stymieing the welfare of the country. Is it any wonder so many American business', and American jobs, are moving to less regulated countries? STUPID LAWS An Amish farmer near Orrville, Ohio faces sentencing next month for killing owls. You see, owls are predators, and he raises ornamental and game birds -- hundreds of them. The farmer said that the great horned owls endangered his business. No doubt! They see his farm as a great source of free food. The farmer first tried using a decoy to keep the owls away. But the owls soon got wise and pecked it away. So, the farmer used traps to kill a few of the owls. That's when his problems with the critter cop division of the environmental enforcers began. The horned owls are not endangered. That's not the problem here. As Steven Gray, assistant chief of the Ohio Wildlife Division said, the traps are frowned upon because they might catch a rare species. Might?? Evidently, the State of Ohio has much more concern for a protected predator that "might" get caught than for the livelihood of one of the state's families. That is sad. The farmer, Melvin Troyer, could get 90 days in jail and/or a $750 fine as the result of Ohio's bureaucrats forgetting why governments are formed. MILITIA NEWS The news of recent gun legislation has brought national attention to the government's continued efforts to ban firearms. The most recent and alarming is the Domestic Violence Gun Grab. This law has opened a Pandora's Box of probabilities concerning future legislation involving our Constitutional Liberties. It now seems that simple misdemeanors can become the rule of thumb for stripping any citizen of their rights! Shall we stand by and allow our elected officials to pretend that they are so naive they had no knowledge concerning the legislation voted upon? Shall we stand by and allow our elected officials in both political parties to turn this great country into a slave state? Or worse, a slave state enforced by a Federal Police Force? How shall we stop them you ask? The answer is simple. UNITY! Our plan is to unify all members of the militia/patriot movement together with other concerned citizens of the political community into one national organization. The major goal of the National Organization would be to preserve the Constitutional and unalienable liberties of all Americans through the use of the public information, petition and electoral process. A secondary goal of the new organization will be to educate its members on methods of insuring their own survival and protection. Combined, we could become a political force never before seen in this country. We might also become the last real deterrent against big government socialism and oppression. Work is still in progress on just such a National Organization and the new year will bring a new direction in how the average citizen deals with its government. Further information shall be released in future editions of "Heads Up." -- Lance R. Crowe Psico1@bgn.mindspring.com MERRY CHRISTMAS We hope that each of you, and your families, enjoy the blessings of a very, very Merry Christmas. -- END --