Still looking for painter recommendation(s)...
Ms Bev
We need to have the exterior of our house in Ben Lomond painted. Can anyone
recommend a painter (or ones to avoid)? If they could do deck washing and
sealing also that would be great.
Thanks,
Ms Bev
Tim May
<ms*bev...@altavista.com> wrote:
I used Jack Johnson of Aptos. Did a good job.
Of course, nearly all people who have their houses painted clearly
cannot have a meaningful sample of painters in the area. This means "I
used Jack...blah blah" is an isolated data point, saying more about the
pickiness of the homeowner than about the quality of the job done.
I just had a new roof put on my house in Corralitos. Instead of asking
here for personal comments on the dozens of roofing companies in the
area, I looked for a roofer this way:
1) Asked my real estate broker who _they_ recommended. (Realtors often
have houses painted to make them more saleable, and they deal with
enough contractors to have a meaningful sample.)
2) Length of time in business in the area, size of the Yellow Pages ad,
number of advertisements on local radio and t.v., etc. In other words,
"name recognition."
3) Bids and personal experience talking to the contractor. Get a few
bids from contractors. Talking to the estimator goes a long way toward
making a decision.
I do these things with flooring, carpeting, landscaping, and roofing
contractors. Works better than asking on the Usenet.
--Tim May
Donald Kerns
Hey,
I can't even get the painting contractors who are my personal friends to do
my house, for serious money, within the next 2 and a half months... (Ya
know, like before the rainy season?)
Perhaps it is time to get out of software and into painting...
Anyhow, there's a professional painter in the St Andrew's parish that
helped paint my daughter's room... Perhaps my wife will remember the name.
-Donald
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not be able to tell the difference.
Tim May
<kernsd...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ms Bev wrote:
>
> > One more time, with feeling...
> >
> > We need to have the exterior of our house in Ben Lomond painted. Can
> > anyone recommend a painter (or ones to avoid)? If they could do deck
> > washing and sealing also that would be great.
...
> I can't even get the painting contractors who are my personal friends to do
> my house, for serious money, within the next 2 and a half months... (Ya
> know, like before the rainy season?)
>
> Perhaps it is time to get out of software and into painting...
>
There being such a shortage of painters (and roofers, and tile-layers,
and carpet-installers, and so on), why are there so many "homeless"
bums in the Santa Cruz area?
As I said in my last post in this thread, I just had a new roof put on
my house. On the first day, the "roof-rippers" arrived at 8 a.m. in a
couple of big trucks. Nine or ten Mexicans/Mexican-Americans. The
clambered up on the roof and proceeded to remove and roll-up the felt
and shakes and dump them in the truck below. They were out of there by
10:30 a.m. The foreman told me they typically do two roof rips a day.
His workers are mostly unskilled, documented (legal) workers from
Mexico. They do the work the homeless bums won't do.
The foreman's supervisor, who also came out to my house, told me he
routinely is at the highway offramp at 41st Ave. where one of the "Will
work for food" bums hangs out in the center divider. He asks the guy
"You ready for a real job yet?"
The point being that good, solid work is available. And this is not
"backbreaking" labor: this is work installing carpets, acting as
helpers on construction sites, laying roof shingles, and on and on. And
there are plenty of similar jobs in landscaping, gardening, tree work,
and other outdoor jobs.
Do these tramps, winos, bums, drifters and good-for-nothings take these
jobs? Of course not. They'd rather beg. They'd rather drink Boone's
Farm and smoke dope down by the San Lorenzo River and complain that the
government hasn't provided housing for them.
It's time we call them what they are: bums.
--Tim May
Poppa
Tim May wrote:
>
> "You ready for a real job yet?"
>
> The point being that good, solid work is available. And this is not
> "backbreaking" labor: this is work installing carpets, acting as
> helpers on construction sites, laying roof shingles, and on and on. And
> there are plenty of similar jobs in landscaping, gardening, tree work,
> and other outdoor jobs.
>
> Do these tramps, winos, bums, drifters and good-for-nothings take these
> jobs? Of course not. They'd rather beg. They'd rather drink Boone's
> Farm and smoke dope down by the San Lorenzo River and complain that the
> government hasn't provided housing for them.
>
> It's time we call them what they are: bums.
>
> --Tim May
I still say their not employable. Get one on your roof and he'll fall off. Take
time and convince them working is the right thing to do. Take them to the job
site, show them any simple job. Leave them alone and they'll fuck it up. There
goes your time and materials all because you insist they work. Some people just
don't have the genetic programming to work. It is not there, it is god's will.
They can't think and have no confidence. They will fuck up everything you give
them to do just to show you that this is the case. They cannot be saved. They
drain more from the economy when you try to make them work. I say leave them
alone and give them a check.
Poppa
Kirsti Noble
of Menlo Park so I had to tack on the couple hundred for the painters to sack
out at the Econolodge to save them the hellish round trip drive.
The work crew was always in good cheer and quick!
WARD PAINTING
COMPANY DESCRIPTION:
Interior & exterior custom painting for residential and commercial,
power washing, decking, exteriors and industrial floors.
SPECIALTIES:
- Interior & Exterior Painting
- Power washing
- Commercial Floors
Address: 627 SAN BENITO AVE
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: (650) 366-2172
Pager: (650) 366-2172
Email: ward_p...@hotmail.com
Web Site: http://wardpainting.improvenet.com
-K.
Tim May
<po...@bigbellybear.com> wrote:
> I still say their not employable. Get one on your roof and he'll fall off.
> Take
> time and convince them working is the right thing to do. Take them to the job
> site, show them any simple job. Leave them alone and they'll fuck it up. There
> goes your time and materials all because you insist they work. Some people
> just
> don't have the genetic programming to work. It is not there, it is god's will.
> They can't think and have no confidence. They will fuck up everything you give
> them to do just to show you that this is the case. They cannot be saved. They
> drain more from the economy when you try to make them work. I say leave them
> alone and give them a check.
"Leave them a alone and give them a check"?
A check from _where_? A check from _whom_?
It sounds like you think _government_ should "give them a check."
Not out of my pocket. And anyone who forcibly takes money to give to
bums needs to be rounded up and gassed.
--Tim May
Ms Bev
"Tim May" <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
news:140820010824148157%tc...@got.net...
> I used Jack Johnson of Aptos. Did a good job.
>
> Of course, nearly all people who have their houses painted clearly
> cannot have a meaningful sample of painters in the area. This means "I
> used Jack...blah blah" is an isolated data point, saying more about the
> pickiness of the homeowner than about the quality of the job done.
>
> I just had a new roof put on my house in Corralitos. Instead of asking
> here for personal comments on the dozens of roofing companies in the
> area, I looked for a roofer this way:
>
> 1) Asked my real estate broker who _they_ recommended. (Realtors often
> have houses painted to make them more saleable, and they deal with
> enough contractors to have a meaningful sample.)
>
> 2) Length of time in business in the area, size of the Yellow Pages ad,
> number of advertisements on local radio and t.v., etc. In other words,
> "name recognition."
>
> 3) Bids and personal experience talking to the contractor. Get a few
> bids from contractors. Talking to the estimator goes a long way toward
> making a decision.
>
> I do these things with flooring, carpeting, landscaping, and roofing
> contractors. Works better than asking on the Usenet.
>
>
> --Tim May
>
the above research. Unfortunately time is of the essence what with the
impending rains and the lack of time I have available to do the above
research- what with being gone 12 hours a day working over the hill- at
least until Carly finds the appropriately serious dark suit to wear to
announce the lay-offs.
Ms Bev
Ms Bev
"Kirsti Noble" <ste...@scruznet.com> wrote in message
news:3B79866F...@scruznet.com...
> Try these guys. We had them paint our place just last month. They're
out
> of Menlo Park so I had to tack on the couple hundred for the painters to
sack
> out at the Econolodge to save them the hellish round trip drive.
> The work crew was always in good cheer and quick!
>
near 17 and Mt. Hermon that offers the continental breakfast, and add that
to their demands.
Ms Bev
Tim May
<ms*bev...@altavista.com> wrote:
> Thanks, all good points. I am hoping to add a "personal recommendation" to
> the above research. Unfortunately time is of the essence what with the
> impending rains and the lack of time I have available to do the above
> research- what with being gone 12 hours a day working over the hill- at
> least until Carly finds the appropriately serious dark suit to wear to
> announce the lay-offs.
By the way, I'd _strongly_ encourage the choice of a painting company
big enough to have a real office with real receptionists/secretaries.
This is important because they'll schedule the job professionally, will
subcontract when necessary, and will meet their announced schedules.
By contrast, the guy who works out of his home, who uses his answering
machine to take calls, etc., is probably running late on a bunch of
jobs and schedules will slip. Or he may be moonlighting from his
"other" job (painting or not). I saw this especially on some
construction jobs, where the crew would arrive every night around 4:30
and work until it was too dark to work...clearly they were
moonlighting, literally.
My roof job had a couple of subcontractors--delivery of materials, rain
gutters, and they had schedules to meet. So the foreman was on his cell
phone a lot, making sure it all happened.
When the office told me the job would start Tuesday morning, the
tear-off crew (the 10 Mexicans I mentioned) was there by 8 a.m. Then
the actual carpenter, one guy, handled the nailing down of the plywood
and the laying of the shingles. And the flashing. Done very, very well.
He had to meet the schedules of the company delivering the materials.
And the rain gutter subcontractor did the job yesterday.
All that now awaits are the skylights...the neatly-carpentered holes
are now covered by temporary transparent sheets.
Painting a house may be slightly less "indutrial" than this job, but a
real company, with real offices and real dispatchers, will be likely to
do a more scheduled and thorough job than a guy who does his own thing.
The Yellow Pages remains about the best way to find such a company.
Friends and neighbors who have contacts is good, in theory, but in
practice most people have their houses painted infrequently (the
weathered look being popular in these parts) and so the sampling is
sparse. Use these contacts if you can, but the Yellow Pages is my best
bet.
And, as I said, talking to the estimators will help answer questions
about whether they come out on time (plan to take a half-day off of
work, or work at home that day), their office size, etc.
Good luck,
--Tim May
Poppa
Tim May wrote:
>
> "Leave them a alone and give them a check"?
>
> A check from _where_? A check from _whom_?
>
> It sounds like you think _government_ should "give them a check."
>
> Not out of my pocket. And anyone who forcibly takes money to give to
> bums needs to be rounded up and gassed.
>
> --Tim May
Yes Tim a check from the government using tax payers contributions.
Give them a break. They can no more work then grow or shrink an inch.
Do you really want to gas me? Come on Tim your not a Nazi are you?
Poppa
Geoff Miller
"Ms Bev" <ms*bev...@altavista.com> writes:
> I just hope they didn't notice that expensive hotel near 17
> and Mt. Hermon that offers the continental breakfast, and
> add that to their demands.
That place has a nice bar. I stopped in there one weekend on
my way home from SannaCrooz and had a martini while I relaxed
with a book. There aren't too many places left in Scotts Valley
where one can get a drink anymore. The Mormons must've taken
over that town.
Geoff
--
"I fully intend to leave this earth with a smile on my face
and my trousers round my ankles." -- Julian Macassey
Geoff Miller
Poppa <po...@bigbellybear.com> writes:
> Give them a break. They can no more work then grow or
> shrink an inch.
So then how do you get from there to the idea that the
government (i.e., us) should subsidize them?
If the bastards can't support themselves, then I say we
should step back, allow nature to take its course, and
'em croak. They're making no contribution to society, so
why should society subsidize their worthless, malingering
existence? What did these parasitical bastards ever do
for me, even indirectly, that I should want my tax dollars
to go toward propping up their miserable, shambling excuse
for an existence?
Donald Kerns
>
>
> Tim May wrote:
>
>>
>> Not out of my pocket. And anyone who forcibly takes money to give to
>> bums needs to be rounded up and gassed.
>>
>> --Tim May
>
> Do you really want to gas me? Come on Tim your not a Nazi are you?
>
> Poppa
Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers for... ;-)
-D
Poppa
Consider a real retard (no not Bush). Do we let them starve or live in
the street, no we don't. How about people born with a physical
disadvantage, no again, we take care of them.
It is what we do and it is what makes us civilized.
If I measure the whole population to determine how fast we run. I would
find that some of us run very fast and some run very slow, but most
would be in the middle. This is determined the hand dealt you by the
gene pool dealer. I'll suggest to you that because we have a top 1.8
percent of over achievers that we also have 1.8 percent of under
achievers. These are the people to were talking about and I'm not one to
sit back and watch them starve be cause because some cosmic ray hit
their great grand father in the nuts and screwed up his DNA.
I say they deserve the basics. It don't have to be great but they should
not have to live under a bridge and beg for food on the street. After
all this is the United States and not some turd world country.
Poppa
Tim May
<po...@bigbellybear.com> wrote:
Yes, I would gas you if you insisted on taking my money to give to
these bums.
As for their "they can no more work than..." point, this is nonsense.
If they have to , they could take off their "Norse bathrobes," put on
worker's overalls, and start digging ditches and carrying hods.
I've met a lot of these bums. Most are just lazy. Giving them a check
just encourages more laziness.
But the key point is that I did not give you permission to reach into
my wallet to take money out to give to others. Those who steal my money
need to be exterminated, for reasons of justice and as a lesson to
others.
--Tim May
Tim May
<kernsd...@aol.com> wrote:
> Poppa wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Tim May wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Not out of my pocket. And anyone who forcibly takes money to give to
> >> bums needs to be rounded up and gassed.
> >>
> >> --Tim May
> >
> > Do you really want to gas me? Come on Tim your not a Nazi are you?
> >
> > Poppa
>
> Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers for... ;-)
Since somebody decided to fool around with the follow-ups setting, I
already answered this is in the other places this was posted.
In short, I would relish "dropping the pellet" on this Poppa commie. He
blithers about taking "our" money and giving it to those poor helpless
bums who are too lazy to work.
I say his kind need to be liquidated. Push them into open pits and
then use bulldozers. Should cut the cost-per-unit to very little.
--Tim May
Tim May
wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2001 14:57:50 -0700, geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Poppa <po...@bigbellybear.com> writes:
> >
> >> Give them a break. They can no more work then grow or
> >> shrink an inch.
> >
> >
> >So then how do you get from there to the idea that the
> >government (i.e., us) should subsidize them?
>
> We live in a society with a form of government that takes our money
> for group or social projects, right? If you're Libertarian and want
> to argue that there should be no government, fine. Take the argument
> from there and leave it up to organisations like churches or social
> groups to collect donations. But we might want to consider your
> second question first...
Redistributing income is not a function of the government, as specified
in the U.S. Constitution.
Check out David Crockett's speech, circa 1840, on why he came to the
conclusion that voting a widow a special pension was just not permitted
by the Constitution, no matter how nice or deserving or pititul the
widow was. A search engine should turn it up.
The Framers would be horrified to find that able-bodied men (and women)
are receiving checks from the treasury to support their drug habits,
their layabout lifestyles, and their continued shirking of work.
Seems to me it's long past time we hold trials for all those who have
collected welfare or participated in any way with the forced
redistribution of income. Liquidation of millions of crack hoes and
"Lawandatanonda" welfare breeders would be a spectacle worth watching.
--Tim May
Nancy Block
>
>"Tim May" <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
>news:140820010824148157%tc...@got.net...
>> I used Jack Johnson of Aptos. Did a good job.
>>
>> Of course, nearly all people who have their houses painted clearly
>> cannot have a meaningful sample of painters in the area. This means "I
>> used Jack...blah blah" is an isolated data point, saying more about the
>> pickiness of the homeowner than about the quality of the job done.
>>
.
.
>>
>Thanks, all good points. I am hoping to add a "personal recommendation" to
>the above research. Unfortunately time is of the essence what with the
>impending rains and the lack of time I have available to do the above
>research- what with being gone 12 hours a day working over the hill- at
>least until Carly finds the appropriately serious dark suit to wear to
>announce the lay-offs.
>
No one mentioned Bay Area Consumer's Checkbook. I thought they had
an article on local painters in the last year or so. They have a website
that you can download articles from, for small $$.
Also check ValueStar's website.
Even recommendations from >1 person don't necessarily mean competence. I
used Cornerstone, a general contractor who'd been recommended by two Sun
folk, some years ago, to do my kitchen.
I even did detailed drawings of the cabinets. The cabinetmaker he used
not only didn't bother to follow the drawings (without saying so), but he
made the cabinets *smaller*. He was a piece of work. He also drilled
shelf peg holes that didn't line up. And the tile subcontractor put
oceans of grout between tiles (1/2"-3/4"). Etc.
I just had Ward Painting do my house. They were quite reasonable and
did a reasonably good job. If they're not in the Yellow Pages, I have
their number.
Nancy
Mike J Oropeza
> OK, I read it. Davy Crockett talks to a man by his plow, who speaks
> to him about the Constitution. He says it's not constitutional to
> spend tax money for "charity".
I agree. I do not advocate the use of force to achieve any social or political goal. When the
government uses its taxation powers to fund charity, it is deploying its army, police, and
jails to forcibly collect the money for this purpose. If I refuse to pay, I will be compelled
through force to surrender property and liberty. I don't appreciate being mugged by my
government to pay for charity.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use
physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are
defending against force.
> He says that gov't takes the money
> from thousands who may be less well-off than those who receive it, and
> also, he makes the point that Congress has complete discretion on the
> amount that's spent, contrasting that with the situation of "debts"
> that must be paid.
The government has other assets they can use to aid charity besides their powers of taxation.
For instance, public land could be dedicated to charitable purpose, or leased to industry or
citizens with the proceeds directed to helping those that need it.
--
Mike J Oropeza
Those who hear not the music, think the dancers mad ~{';'}~
John R Pierce
<moro...@goldway.com> wrote:
>The government has other assets they can use to aid charity besides their powers of taxation.
>For instance, public land could be dedicated to charitable purpose, or leased to industry or
>citizens with the proceeds directed to helping those that need it.
if the gov leased that land, they could reduce our taxes. By
leasing the land, and still collecting the taxes, it amounts to the
same thing.
Nancy Block
Poppa wrote:
>
> Lets be real here. Were not going to kill them or let them starve.
> Consider a real retard (no not Bush). Do we let them starve or live in
> the street, no we don't. How about people born with a physical
> disadvantage, no again, we take care of them.
> It is what we do and it is what makes us civilized.
Frankly, my dear, I fail to see the connection. And did it ever
occur to you that if we follow this logic, we will "civilize" ourselves
to the point where there is one person per square foot?
> I'll suggest to you that because we have a top 1.8
> percent of over achievers that we also have 1.8 percent of under
> achievers. These are the people to were talking about and I'm not one to
> sit back and watch them starve be cause because some cosmic ray hit
> their great grand father in the nuts and screwed up his DNA.
Fine. You take responsibility for the consequences of your
patronizing attitude and don't expect the rest of us to pay the bill
in either money or crowdedness.
Dirt Devil
>In article <3B7AE30C...@bigbellybear.com>, Poppa
><po...@bigbellybear.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes Tim a check from the government using tax payers contributions.
>> Give them a break. They can no more work then grow or shrink an inch.
>> Do you really want to gas me? Come on Tim your not a Nazi are you?
>
>Yes, I would gas you if you insisted on taking my money to give to
>these bums.
Please notice that Tim says "I *would* gas you ...", as opposed to "I
will" or "I have gassed those hwho have done this."
The reason is that he has never done a single thing (aside from
trolling on usenet) to support his stand or to follow through on any
of the absured things that he has said.
In reality, he is just an angry guy who has no social conscience and
no social graces. He sits around fondeling his weapons and feeding
his cats.
That's reality.
--
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love."
-- _A_General_Theory_Of_Love_ Thanks, Mom
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Dirt Devil
>
>I used Jack Johnson of Aptos. Did a good job.
>
>Of course, nearly all people who have their houses painted clearly
>cannot have a meaningful sample of painters in the area. This means "I
>used Jack...blah blah" is an isolated data point, saying more about the
>pickiness of the homeowner than about the quality of the job done.
We must add that "Jack Johnson" "did a good job" only because he
worked at gunpoint. It was the middle of winter and quite cold, but
Johnson worked up quite a sweat, from fear alone.
That's the way that Tim likes it.
Dirt Devil
No. Only a Nazi wannabee.
Dirt Devil
Geoff Miller <geo...@netgate.net> wrote:
>
>If the bastards can't support themselves, then I say we
>should step back, allow nature to take its course, and
>'em croak. They're making no contribution to society, so
>why should society subsidize their worthless, malingering
>existence? What did these parasitical bastards ever do
>for me, even indirectly, that I should want my tax dollars
>to go toward propping up their miserable, shambling excuse
>for an existence?
Let's begine with a definition of "the bastards".
Can we assume that parentage has little to do with it and that you are
referring to those people who are "making no contribution to society"
... but that begs a definition of more terms, like "contribution" and
"society".
The society can be what presently exists (in which case, they are a
definate part of it), the society which existed back in the daze that
Tim still dreams of (sorry Tim, those daze are long gone) or the
society that we would like to see for the future.
If it is the latter (the only one that makes sense to most of us),
then what is is that *we* want? Not just you or Tim, but pretty much
everybody.
By "contribution to society", I am getting the impression that you are
saying what you said in your post: "What did these parasitical
bastards ever do for me, even indirectly ...?"
That narrows it down substantially. We no longer have to be concerned
with what Tim wants or even what I want -- it is not down to
specifically what they have done for *you*.
OK, let me think about this .... Geoff as king ....
I might just buy into it! Kool parties!
Dirt Devil
>
>Redistributing income is not a function of the government, as specified
>in the U.S. Constitution.
Hasen't it sunk in yet, Tim? The Constitution is all but dead. At
best, it is a mere shadow of its former self.
You seem amazingly resistant to reality. You seem to be living in the
past, but what is most amazing about that is that it isn't even a past
that you knew. It was a past taught to you in publik skool by folks
who also did not live it.
These are the same folks who brought you the "cower under your desks
with your hands behind your neck when the Big One hits, to save your
life" when they knew perfectly well that if a Big One hit anywhere
close, everybody would be simply Russian BBQ.
Many may have thought, when you started posting here, that you were a
bright guy. Yet you persist in going on about how things should be
like they were in the Good Auld Daze (tm) (as if you actually know how
that was). You persist in complaining about how the government is
taking so much of your inordinate wealth, but if you were really as
bright as you would like people to believe, you would have all of your
buks so well hidden from the IRS that they couldn't find it with your
help.
Instead, you keep going on about all that you don't like as if it
could magically change, if people would just listen to you.
David Korish isn't dead. He's living in a compound in Corrolitos.
>Seems to me it's long past time we hold trials for all those who have
>collected welfare or participated in any way with the forced
>redistribution of income. Liquidation of millions of crack hoes and
>"Lawandatanonda" welfare breeders would be a spectacle worth watching.
Yer right on the ragged edge of being a "danger to self or others".
We have a place for you in this county.
Mike J Oropeza
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:04:45 -0700, Mike J Oropeza
> <moro...@goldway.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree. I do not advocate the use of force to achieve any social or political goal. When the
> >government uses its taxation powers to fund charity, it is deploying its army, police, and
> >jails to forcibly collect the money for this purpose. If I refuse to pay, I will be compelled
> >through force to surrender property and liberty. I don't appreciate being mugged by my
> >government to pay for charity.
>
> Does this mean you advocate the use of force by the government to
> other ends?
Yes. Such as law enforcement for the protection of property or life. Or to repel force.
> To what ends would it be ok for the government to
> forcibly collect tax money?
I can't think of any. The use of force to collect money that doesn't belong to you has a term:
robbery.
> >Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use
> >physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are
> >defending against force.
>
> Sure, it *should* be, but often it's not. I agree with you that force
> is acceptable in cases of self-defense. Do you agree that the
> government should force people to give their money in order to prepare
> for war? (A self-defensive war, of course.) What if they don't want
> to? What if there's no actual threat?
As the government leases its assets to industry, the gummint could deny access to the assets if
they fail to pay. If individuals choose to use force to access these government assets, or chooses
to steal them, force is appropriate to repel them.
> >The government has other assets they can use to aid charity besides their powers of taxation.
> >For instance, public land could be dedicated to charitable purpose, or leased to industry or
> >citizens with the proceeds directed to helping those that need it.
>
> "The Government" is us (at least theoretically) in this country. So
> what difference does it really make if we give tax money vs. the
> benefit of public lands to the "less fortunate" among us?
The issue here is force. If I'm sitting at home and an officer arrives to arrest me for failure to
pay taxes, force is their ultimate authority to compel me to court and to jail. However, if they
block access to a state park, mine, or highway because I refuse to pay, I would have to resort to
force to access it, or I would have to steal it.
In other words, I think that highways, sewers, and possibly even electrical transmission
infrastracture (or the right to build it) could all be considered government assets that could be
leveraged to collect fees.
Please don't think I am advocating socialism. I'm not. I prefer privatized industry. I simply
think of the government as the administrative arm of the body of citizens living upon the land. As
industries (and the people involved) draw upon the resources of the land, it owes something to
society, or the government that represents it. Even in my ideal world, governments would still be
capable of law enforcement, zoning, establishing infrastucture useful for commerce, and health
commodities such as water and sewers.
For years there was graffiti on Hiway 9 above Saratoga that always appealed to me for its
simplicity:
Anarchy Rules!!!
TBO
> Hasen't it sunk in yet, Tim? The Constitution is all but dead. At
> best, it is a mere shadow of its former self.
That would be about 99.9% of the problem. Hopefully, it's not
terminal, as in: "It's not too late and we don't have to start over."
--- TBO
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,the_bo...@my-deja.com (TBO) wrote:
Dunno. I'm terrible at predecting the future and only marginal
at predicting the past.
Yes, there *may* have been something there of value. Clearly
though, what is there falls short of having definitive answers to
many of the situations that are faced today.
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love."
-- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom
TBO
> Yes, there *may* have been something there of value.
This statement implies that you feel that there was little or nothing
of provable (to you) value in the entire US Constitution historically,
and further implies that you feel that there is essentially nothing in
the US Constitution of current value. Therefore, there is little or
no foundation for continuing this discussion, since I am nearly 180
degrees in opposition to your stance.
However...
> Clearly though, what is there falls short of having definitive answers to
> many of the situations that are faced today.
It's not so clear to me. Do you have any examples of what you're
referring to?
--- TBO
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,the_bo...@my-deja.com (TBO) wrote:
>gl...@cruzio.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3b84fb3...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>
>> Yes, there *may* have been something there of value.
>
>This statement implies that you feel that there was little or nothing
>of provable (to you) value in the entire US Constitution historically,
Not exactly. Historically, it was a beautious piece of work --
light years ahead of most other attempts of its type.
It is not, though, the only thing (even at that time) that tried
to address fairness, equity, etc. (I am on *very* shakey ground
here, but not for the reasons that one might think) Many Native
American groups were living in ways that may have been even far
superior to the Constitution for thousands of years prior to the
first honkey wandering over here. Unfortunately (here is the
basis for the "shakey ground) none of these systems were ever
written down.
No, those way may not have stood up to the changes that have
occured over time, either. But then, I suspect that if we had
held to those ways, we wouldn't have found ourselves in so many
of the difficulties that have seen, over the past few centuries.
But "not written down" is only an excuse to ignore our ignorance.
We could have been more observant at the time.
>and further implies that you feel that there is essentially nothing in
>the US Constitution of current value.
Ha! Start running down the Ammendments and tell me which have
full face value, today. You'll have to count to 5 or 10 before
you get to something that is still sound, as it was written.
Even beyond that, I think you'll find a few watered down
Ammendments.
Mind you, I have *no* problem with change. It is the Universal
Constant. However, to try to hang one's (almost) total
philosophy on a basterdized set of values, as does Tim, seems to
be like someone trying to play with the Way Back Machine. I
outgrew that at about 5 years old.
>Therefore, there is little or
>no foundation for continuing this discussion, since I am nearly 180
>degrees in opposition to your stance.
Oh? You found a way to vote that *includes* the bribes? I
thought that the envelope was just a place to put the compleeted
ballots.
>However...
>
>> Clearly though, what is there falls short of having definitive answers to
>> many of the situations that are faced today.
>
>It's not so clear to me. Do you have any examples of what you're
>referring to?
Ayup!
Freedom of Speech (but, but, but, right?)
Right to bear arms (ditto)
OK, I could run through all of the Ammendments, but that wasn't
exactly what I was talking about in the (just) above statement
and not what you were taking about.
Let's talk CPS.
I doubt that there is a sane person in this country who would not
agree that it is a Good Thing (tm) to protect kids from getting
abused.
So CPS is set up (ostensibly) to protect children from abuse.
However, it is set up outside of the Constitution, in that the
rights that we take for granted are suspended in the case of CPS
investigations *unless the parents are charged*.
CPS can come in and question children without the permission of
the parents. CPS can remove the children from the parents' home
without charging the parents (leaving the suspension of rights in
effect).
I'm sure that others can come up with many more examples, but
this one is something that is near and dear to me.
Rich Seifert
>
> I doubt that there is a sane person in this country who would not
> agree that it is a Good Thing (tm) to protect kids from getting
> abused.
>
> So CPS is set up (ostensibly) to protect children from abuse.
>
> However, it is set up outside of the Constitution, in that the
> rights that we take for granted are suspended in the case of CPS
> investigations *unless the parents are charged*.
>
> CPS can come in and question children without the permission of
> the parents. CPS can remove the children from the parents' home
> without charging the parents (leaving the suspension of rights in
> effect).
>
And you think this is a "Good Thing"? It is one thing to question witnesses
in the process of a criminal investigation. Clearly, if an organization is
investigating possible child abuse, then questioning the children should be
allowed without asking permission from the (potential) criminals being
investigated. However, once the investigation is complete, one determines
whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed,
or there isn't. If there isn't, the investigation is dropped and that
should be the end of it.
We have a term for the removal of a child from its legal guardians' home
without the permission of the guardians (and absent probable cause to
believe the guardians have committed any wrongdoing)--it's called
kidnapping.
--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
ri...@richseifert.com 21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 395-1966 FAX
Tim May
Seifert <ri...@richseifert.com> wrote:
> In article <3b87a718...@cnews.newsguy.com>, gl...@cruzio.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I doubt that there is a sane person in this country who would not
> > agree that it is a Good Thing (tm) to protect kids from getting
> > abused.
> >
> > So CPS is set up (ostensibly) to protect children from abuse.
> >
> > However, it is set up outside of the Constitution, in that the
> > rights that we take for granted are suspended in the case of CPS
> > investigations *unless the parents are charged*.
> >
> > CPS can come in and question children without the permission of
> > the parents. CPS can remove the children from the parents' home
> > without charging the parents (leaving the suspension of rights in
> > effect).
> >
>
> And you think this is a "Good Thing"? It is one thing to question witnesses
> in the process of a criminal investigation. Clearly, if an organization is
> investigating possible child abuse, then questioning the children should be
> allowed without asking permission from the (potential) criminals being
> investigated. However, once the investigation is complete, one determines
> whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed,
> or there isn't. If there isn't, the investigation is dropped and that
> should be the end of it.
A couple of quibbles:
First, you mention a "criminal investigation." If there is one, and
parties are being charged, then those parties still have rights. In the
case of nearly all Child Protective Services cases, no notification of
a criminal investigation has been presented (no warrant, no subpoena,
no court papers, no orders to appear in some place, nothing). All we
have in most CPS cases is a typical man-woman team rolling into a
driveway and demanding to enter a home without a warrant.
Second, standards for "child abuse" are ridiculously vague. In some
places, spanking a child is considered child abuse. In other places,
normal behavior. In some places, having a gun in the house is ipso
facto evidence of child abuse. (These cases have generally not gone to
the Supremes for clarification--all sides are skirting the issue. I
like to hope that the Supreme Court would point out that having a gun
in a house is a protected consitutional right, no matter the view of
the American Medical Association that ownership of guns is a form of
child endangerment!)
>
> We have a term for the removal of a child from its legal guardians' home
> without the permission of the guardians (and absent probable cause to
> believe the guardians have committed any wrongdoing)--it's called
> kidnapping.
Kidnappers and trespassers should be fought off by the homeowner.
--Tim May
John R Pierce
>First, you mention a "criminal investigation." If there is one, and
>parties are being charged, then those parties still have rights. In the
>case of nearly all Child Protective Services cases, no notification of
>a criminal investigation has been presented (no warrant, no subpoena,
>no court papers, no orders to appear in some place, nothing). All we
>have in most CPS cases is a typical man-woman team rolling into a
>driveway and demanding to enter a home without a warrant.
indeed, and standing up for your legal rights is considered evidence
you must be guilty.
Mike Blackford
>
> On 24 Aug 2001 13:55:15 -0700, in
> ba.mountain-folk,the_bo...@my-deja.com (TBO) wrote:
>
> >gl...@cruzio.com (Glen Appleby) wrote in message news:<3b84fb3...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >> Yes, there *may* have been something there of value.
> >
> >This statement implies that you feel that there was little or nothing
> >of provable (to you) value in the entire US Constitution historically,
>
> Not exactly. Historically, it was a beautious piece of work --
> light years ahead of most other attempts of its type.
One of the problems with 'history' is that we learn it from biased
perspectives. Few people seem to keep in mind that:
- the Constitution was a 'last resort', written nearly 10 years after
the revolution by folks who knew that if Britain reasserted their
control over the colonies, their property (most were very wealthy) and
their lives (executions for 'rebels') would be taken by the Crown. The
'rabble" (as common folk were usually called) were becoming more and
more inclined to look back at the "good old days" as British citizens.
(No wonder the so many members of plutocracy were fearful of democratic
power.)
- the Constitution was a compromise between the politically powerful
from various semi-autonomous states wherein variant political
philosophies were prevalent, from plutocratic to democratic forms. (Two
factions who both wished to be the recipients of the power wrested away
from the monarchy.) Thus, limited 'federalism' had little to do with
anything other than reducing a federal threat to each of those
politically powerful interests prevalent in the various states. To the
degree that the Constitution incorporated *any* democratic safeguards,
it was only due to the coercion of those who held political power in
states having such philosophies, and as a palliative to the 'rabble'.
Largely for this reason, the first major dichotomy in political parties
were the Federalists vs the Republicans (afterwards known as the
Democratic-Republicans until the mid-1800's).
- the Constitution today is very different from the Constitution of the
1790's, and the same political forces are arrayed on each side of the
tug-of-war influencing it's [d]evolution.
--
~~~~ Code Red? See http://members.home.com/mblackford/cr2probe.htm ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zvxr Oynpxsbeq Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn zv...@oynpxsbeq.pbz
Tim May
<sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
In recent cases, any refusal to admit the Gestapo, er, CPS, results in
"a barricade situation."
This escalates things dramatically, with the nettlesome occupants ipso
facto facing serious charges even if the reasons for the CPS attempt to
enter the house are later found to be unwarranted (no pun intended).
Of course, this is why many of us are well-armed.
--Tim May
John R Pierce
>Of course, this is why many of us are well-armed.
but I thought you didn't have any kids?
Tim May
<sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
Maybe I do, maybe I don't, maybe I choose not to say the truth.
If I didn't, and some children narcs decided to pay me a visit, what
then? They still demand a look-see, to determine if any children are
present inside.
And so on.
The general point is that of "unwarranted" searches...unwarranted in
the legal/constitutional sense.
Same as with drug narcs looking for "unusual patterns" of electricity
use, or water use, and doing no-knock raids.
--Tim May
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <rich-ya02306004...@news.megapathdsl.net>, Rich
>Seifert <ri...@richseifert.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <3b87a718...@cnews.newsguy.com>, gl...@cruzio.com wrote:
>>
>> > I doubt that there is a sane person in this country who would not
>> > agree that it is a Good Thing (tm) to protect kids from getting
>> > abused.
>> >
>> > So CPS is set up (ostensibly) to protect children from abuse.
>> >
>> > However, it is set up outside of the Constitution, in that the
>> > rights that we take for granted are suspended in the case of CPS
>> > investigations *unless the parents are charged*.
>> >
>> > CPS can come in and question children without the permission of
>> > the parents. CPS can remove the children from the parents' home
>> > without charging the parents (leaving the suspension of rights in
>> > effect).
>>
>> And you think this is a "Good Thing"?
<blink> From which stinky orifice did you withdraw that stinky
little morsel?
>> It is one thing to question witnesses
>> in the process of a criminal investigation. Clearly, if an organization is
>> investigating possible child abuse, then questioning the children should be
>> allowed without asking permission from the (potential) criminals being
>> investigated.
Oops! There are many aspects of the laws regarding CPS that
don't involve any crime.
>> However, once the investigation is complete, one determines
>> whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed,
>> or there isn't. If there isn't, the investigation is dropped and that
>> should be the end of it.
That would be almost nice, if that were the case. It ain't.
Keep formost in your thoughts on this that CPS makes money from
simply investigating. Yes, mo' money from actually taking kids
temperorairly and mo' money yet if they take them perminently.
Add to that, that a file will be kept on file no matter what the
outcome. If a case is investigated 10 years ago and someone
wants to call CPS to investigate the parents (for employment in
daycare, perhaps), CPS will say that they have been investigated,
but cannot say for what and cannot say what the outcome was --
for reasons of privacy, of course. Rather like "national
security".
>A couple of quibbles:
>
>First, you mention a "criminal investigation." If there is one, and
>parties are being charged, then those parties still have rights. In the
>case of nearly all Child Protective Services cases, no notification of
>a criminal investigation has been presented (no warrant, no subpoena,
>no court papers, no orders to appear in some place, nothing). All we
>have in most CPS cases is a typical man-woman team rolling into a
>driveway and demanding to enter a home without a warrant.
If there is any resistance, the police will be called and many
time the police accompany CPS on the first visit.
If the parents still don't comply, the police will get a warrant.
>Second, standards for "child abuse" are ridiculously vague.
That is because there is no established standard for what "abuse"
is or how it causes the effects that it does, aside from the few
obvious cases -- physical abuse causing injury or death, for
example.
<snip gun rant>
>> We have a term for the removal of a child from its legal guardians' home
>> without the permission of the guardians (and absent probable cause to
>> believe the guardians have committed any wrongdoing)--it's called
>> kidnapping.
>
>Kidnappers and trespassers should be fought off by the homeowner.
Been tried. Failed *every* time.
Right now, CPS wins.
Glen Appleby
Pierce <sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
>indeed, and standing up for your legal rights is considered evidence
>you must be guilty.
But it is worse than that.
On the initial investigation, the *parents* have no rights
because *they* are not being charged.
Where in, the Constitution, does it say that the parents have any
rights wrt their children? The children are not "property" (and
I agree with that). The children are not pets (ditto).
CPS is investigating only the "welfare of the children". CPS
does not make assertions of guilt on the part of the parent --
only that the children may be in some danger and may be better
off removed from the home.
*If* there is some crime taking place (or simply the perception
that a crime may have occured), CPS can turn the matter over to
the DA or to the police.
THEN the parents have rights, but only to protect themselves
against the charges made -- but having nothing to do with their
children being removed.
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>Of course, this is why many of us are well-armed.
Given that you *have* no children, this is nothing but another
TimTroll, an attempt to justify stockpiles of weaponry which have
no value to anybody but angry old men who have no lives.
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <r3dgoto4h3q6snj07...@4ax.com>, John R Pierce
><sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:05:53 -0700, Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Of course, this is why many of us are well-armed.
>>
>> but I thought you didn't have any kids?
>
>Maybe I do, maybe I don't, maybe I choose not to say the truth.
I will. You don't have any kids and have no hope of ever having
any.
>If I didn't, and some children narcs decided to pay me a visit, what
>then? They still demand a look-see, to determine if any children are
>present inside.
Gawd! Talk about self-generated paranoia!
CPS will only respond to complaints. Who, in their right mind,
would complain about how you treat your children?
Now, I can easily see how you mught smack some kids on the
street, but that would be a police matter, since you are not (and
could not be) a parent.
But it is already well known that you have no children of your
own.
>The general point is that of "unwarranted" searches...unwarranted in
>the legal/constitutional sense.
Amazing! You are attempting to make yourself a test case for
CPS's policies ... without a single round in your weapons ...
which may also explain why you have no children.
Tim May
<gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On the initial investigation, the *parents* have no rights
> because *they* are not being charged.
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments apply regardless of whether one
is being "charged." Barging into a home is not permitted without
warrant, regardless of whether charges have or have not been
contemplated of actually filed.
> Where in, the Constitution, does it say that the parents have any
> rights wrt their children? The children are not "property" (and
> I agree with that). The children are not pets (ditto).
This is a red herring. The Fourth Amendment is not voided if Alice is
visiting John's home and the cops decide they want to inquire about
Alice. Neither Alice nor children are "property," as you say, but this
does not void the Fourth.
> CPS is investigating only the "welfare of the children". CPS
> does not make assertions of guilt on the part of the parent --
> only that the children may be in some danger and may be better
> off removed from the home.
"Aassertions of guilt" are neither here nor there. This is not why
people object to having CPS barge into their house to inspect it.
> THEN the parents have rights, but only to protect themselves
> against the charges made -- but having nothing to do with their
> children being removed.
No, the right to be secure in one's papers and possessions, to be
secure from warrantless intrusions, comes long before "charges" are
made.
You need to actually read the Constitution.
--Tim May
Tim May
<gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:05:53 -0700, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
> <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course, this is why many of us are well-armed.
>
> Given that you *have* no children, this is nothing but another
> TimTroll, an attempt to justify stockpiles of weaponry which have
> no value to anybody but angry old men who have no lives.
The Second Amendment means I don't have to "justify" what I have.
But I certainly know that tens of thousands of gun grabbers like you
will eventually have to be put up against a wall and disposed of.
--Tim May
Tim May
wrote:
> Good one, but anarchy means no rules, obviously. That's not what
> you're talking about, either.
>
> Let's say we're in this utopia of yours, and I don't have the right to
> go up to Tim May's door with my little 9mm Glock and stick it in his
> face to demand he pay his share of support for Lawondatanonda's 9th
> baby... or for the schizophrenic alcoholic walking the streets, for
> that matter.
>
> How do you suggest that people deal with such situations? Or what if
> there's another depression with masses of people out of work? Do you
> think F.D.R. did the right thing? Or is he the president who enslaved
> the white people, like my buddy says?
>
> How do we cope with social problems is a huge and diverse society like
> ours?
Anyone who remembers my "Lawondatanonda" reference deserves a good
reply.
On the issue of how screwed-up things are: Yes, very screwed-up. (And
not just because the government is laying claim to more than half of
everything I earn, counting federal, state, property, sales, energy,
and numerous other taxes.)
The fundamental problem is that too many people think the economy is a
zero-sum game. And too many people think the way to make money is to
scam the system, to get Washington and Sacramento to increase their
"benefits."
How to deal with bums, winos, addicts, crack whores, welfare breeders,
and general good-for-nothings?
1. Do nothing. Let them learn to get out there and hustle and stop
waiting for Uncle Sam to provide. Some fraction, perhaps as high as 20%
in some areas, will die. So? Strong medicine to stop a cancer.
2. "Don't make it worse." Giving out freebies to those who don't work
is guaranteed to create more deadbeats. Instead of putting on a silly
uniform and working at Wienerschnitzel, freebies let people just
"slide." Instead of them learning a trade and doing honest work (like
my roofers did a few weeks ago!), freebies let people just sleep in,
whether in the flophouse or down by the river, and it gets worse with
time. The longer they are bums, the less likely they'll _ever_ get into
the actual economy. (Some of them "diss" this economy, referring to
"McJobs" and "low self-esteem careers" (like roofing, I assume). The
fact that we subsidize their disdain while taxing the roofers and
Wienerschnitzel wage earners shows how dysfuntional things have
become.)
3. Why are they are they here in Santa Cruz? Most of the drifters and
tramps arrived from elsewhere...this has been well-documented for 25
years. Why did they come to a place with few solid jobs for low-skilled
persons? (Because of the climate, because of the herbs, because of the
"feed the pigeons" M.O.)
4. Where are their families and why are their families not dealing with
them? Why should hard-working business owners in Santa Cruz be taxed to
pay for bums and derelicts from Chicago and Skokie?
5. As for the small percentage which are truly crazy, all of the
programs to support the lazy bums who choose to smoke weed instead of
laying roof shingles are draining any funds for dealing with the very
small percentage of truly insane persons.
Bottom line, we have been feeding the pigeons. And, guess what?, we are
now covered in shit from all the pigeons flocking around us.
Time to either stop feeding the pigeons, or, if things are out of
control, to start poisoning the pigeons.
--Tim May
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
<mercifly snipped drivel>
But, as I mentioned (and you seemed not to disagree), children
are not property or papers.
Keep trying to hang on tightly to the Good Auld Daze (tm).
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <3b89027e...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:05:53 -0700, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
>> <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Of course, this is why many of us are well-armed.
>>
>> Given that you *have* no children, this is nothing but another
>> TimTroll, an attempt to justify stockpiles of weaponry which have
>> no value to anybody but angry old men who have no lives.
>
>The Second Amendment means I don't have to "justify" what I have.
Well, it is not clear that it means that; however, nobody was
*asking* you to justify a thing. That is something that you are
want to do all on your own, out of the blue, to simply troll.
>But I certainly know that tens of thousands of gun grabbers like you
>will eventually have to be put up against a wall and disposed of.
"Gun grabbers"! That is *so* funny. You must think that you are
the only one to have read usenet and/or the only one who
(over)uses Google.
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>On the issue of how screwed-up things are: Yes, very screwed-up. (And
>not just because the government is laying claim to more than half of
>everything I earn, counting federal, state, property, sales, energy,
>and numerous other taxes.)
Translation: Tim is *so* "bright" that he cannot possible find
any good ways to shield his money (leagally or illeagally) from
the IRS, so he decides, instead, to whine to anybody who will
listen to him.
Poppa
Mike Blackford wrote:
>
>
> One of the problems with 'history' is that we learn it from biased
> perspectives. Few people seem to keep in mind that:
> - the Constitution was a 'last resort', written nearly 10 years after...............alot of net
> stuff.
Gee, I was gone for a week and almost missed my favorite subject.
Mike writes very well and it obviously very well versed in early american history. I would suggest
however, the Mike is the product of liberal schooling. (no offense Mike) Anytime separation of
class or class warfare is brought up in subject my radar goes up. The fact is there are lots of
scholars who presume to have a clue on what happened two hundred years ago. In reality they don't
know jack. The culture was totally different then it is today. The press was scarce and there are
very few authentic documents to draw conclusions from. It is akin to taking a comic book and
creating a full length motion picture from it. If we would interpret the constitution has it is
written things would be better. If the constitution is antiquated then instead of bastardizing it
in the the courts, a constitutional convention should be held to modernize it.
John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by
morality and religion ... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
In light of Mr. Adams comments I would say a convention is long over due....
On Tim's right to hold and bear arms I agree. Sorry folks I know there are many problems with this
including the untimely deaths of children. However, and this is conjecture on my part, Tim and he's
militia may need to over throw the government at some time. If ever King George should rise again I
would urge Tim to take action, I know I will.
Poppa
Tim May
<po...@bigbellybear.com> wrote:
>
> On Tim's right to hold and bear arms I agree. Sorry folks I know there are
> many problems with this
> including the untimely deaths of children. However, and this is conjecture on
> my part, Tim and he's
> militia may need to over throw the government at some time. If ever King
> George should rise again I
> would urge Tim to take action, I know I will.
Lincoln was the first of the fascists to arise, Roosevelt was a Lincoln
wannabee.
As for "rising up," it's started. The destruction of a ZOG center in
Oklahoma City, the bombings of fascists outposts, the spread of
untraceable crypto tools for building cells....
--Tim May
Tim May
<gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:13:47 -0700, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
> <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>
> <mercifly snipped drivel>
> >In article <3b890118...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
> ><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >
> >> THEN the parents have rights, but only to protect themselves
> >> against the charges made -- but having nothing to do with their
> >> children being removed.
> >
> >No, the right to be secure in one's papers and possessions, to be
> >secure from warrantless intrusions, comes long before "charges" are
> >made.
>
> But, as I mentioned (and you seemed not to disagree), children
> are not property or papers.
Entering a home without a warrant violates the Fourth.
Surely you are not so much of a nitwit hillbilly as to not understand
this point. Nattering about "children not being property" has nothing
to do with the point about entering a home without a valid warrant.
--Tim May
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <3b8a4c2d...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:13:47 -0700, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
>> <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>>
>> <mercifly snipped drivel>
>> >In article <3b890118...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
>> ><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> THEN the parents have rights, but only to protect themselves
>> >> against the charges made -- but having nothing to do with their
>> >> children being removed.
>> >
>> >No, the right to be secure in one's papers and possessions, to be
>> >secure from warrantless intrusions, comes long before "charges" are
>> >made.
>>
>> But, as I mentioned (and you seemed not to disagree), children
>> are not property or papers.
>
>Entering a home without a warrant violates the Fourth.
You, then, will surely take this matter up with whoever claims to
be the All Knowing And All Seeing Keeper Of The Constitution, we
can assume?
Apparently, those who *actually* know (as much as anything about
the law can be "known") seem to feel differently, otherwise your
"thinking" would prevail today.
<looking around>
Apparently that isn't the case.
Might that mean that you are doing nothing more than pulling
gunsmoked boogers outta yer nose for the amazement and amusement
of all who read these groups (an ever-dwindeling group, BTW),
>Surely you are not so much of a nitwit hillbilly as to not understand
>this point. Nattering about "children not being property" has nothing
>to do with the point about entering a home without a valid warrant.
Entering a home without a warrant *is* the point of CPS. They
can do it with permission or they can simply get a warrant. In
either case, they can and do do it.
You can cry or threaten (lamely, as usual) all that you want.
The facts before us are the facts.
Wanna take some of that money that you seem to have more of than
brains and change it? *Then* you'll have something to actually
talk about.
Until then, you are simply an vaccuous whiner.
Tim May
<gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Entering a home without a warrant *is* the point of CPS. They
> can do it with permission or they can simply get a warrant. In
> either case, they can and do do it.
>
And I promise to shoot to kill anyone so entering my house.
>
> Until then, you are simply an vaccuous whiner.
>
I'll be so glad when you tarpaper shack is finally hauled away and you
move away.
Your ignorant hillbilly shtick, about living in a place built in a
weekend and lacking running water, has turned out to be accurate,
ironically.
Being mistaken for Kathy's father is a hoot.
--Tim May
Neal Tucker
>>
>>> Clearly though, what is there falls short of having definitive answers to
>>> many of the situations that are faced today.
>>
>>It's not so clear to me. Do you have any examples of what you're
>>referring to?
>
>
>Right to bear arms (ditto)
>
>OK, I could run through all of the Ammendments, but that wasn't
>exactly what I was talking about in the (just) above statement
>and not what you were taking about.
>
>Let's talk CPS.
Those may be examples of cases where the Constitution is not
being properly upheld, but they're not examples of where the
Constitution lacks definitive answers. For example, the
Constitution says that the situation described with CPS (taking
children from their parents without due process) is illegal.
The fact that the situation exists is not a failing of the
Constitution, but in our willingness to uphold it.
TBO was asking for examples of things the Constitution fails
to address.
-Neal Tucker
Neal Tucker
>can do it with permission or they can simply get a warrant. In
>either case, they can and do do it.
>
>You can cry or threaten (lamely, as usual) all that you want.
>The facts before us are the facts.
Do you even understand the point of the various branches of our
government? Saying that, because a law exists and is being
enforced, it must not be challengable or unconstitutional is
ridiculous.
-Neal Tucker
Tim May
<ntu...@vax.hanford.org> wrote:
Glen is part of "Homo Americus Nitwiticus," the vast fraction of
Americans who assume that whatever is being done must be proof that is
being done officially.
That he lives in the mountain equivilent of a $3000 trailer on blocks
is...not surprising.
Santa Cruz County will be (slightly) better off when Glen migrates to
where the welfare benefits are (slightly) better. Maybe his old house
will find some use a chicken coop.
--Tim May
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>Glen Appleby <gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>ba.mountain-folk,the_bo...@my-deja.com (TBO) wrote:
>>>gl...@cruzio.com (Glen Appleby) wrote...
>>>
>>>> Clearly though, what is there falls short of having definitive answers to
>>>> many of the situations that are faced today.
>>>
>>>It's not so clear to me. Do you have any examples of what you're
>>>referring to?
>>
>>Freedom of Speech (but, but, but, right?)
>>
>>Right to bear arms (ditto)
>>
>>OK, I could run through all of the Ammendments, but that wasn't
>>exactly what I was talking about in the (just) above statement
>>and not what you were taking about.
>>
>>Let's talk CPS.
>>...
>
>Those may be examples of cases where the Constitution is not
>being properly upheld,
Accroding to exactly which Constitutional schollar or judge?
>but they're not examples of where the
>Constitution lacks definitive answers. For example, the
>Constitution says that the situation described with CPS (taking
>children from their parents without due process) is illegal.
Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that? I'm honestly
curious because I haven't see it.
>The fact that the situation exists is not a failing of the
>Constitution, but in our willingness to uphold it.
I know. There are some who would like to say that as a way of
saying "It's all OK. We can force this thing to work."
Yeah, maybe. But it is like driving a round, rusty iron peg into
a square hole -- if one uses enough force, it might just work;
but do you really want that rusty iron peg to be acting as a
major security measure to your house?
>TBO was asking for examples of things the Constitution fails
>to address.
Yup, kinda.
I said :
"Clearly though, what is there falls short of having definitive
answers to many of the situations that are faced today."
And Art asked for examples. I gave some.
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <3b8a8940...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> Entering a home without a warrant *is* the point of CPS. They
>> can do it with permission or they can simply get a warrant. In
>> either case, they can and do do it.
>
>And I promise to shoot to kill anyone so entering my house.
More TimTroll.
Even with a warrant, huh, Tim? Anything to get yer name in the
papers *one* last time.
>> Until then, you are simply an vaccuous whiner.
>
>
>I'll be so glad when you tarpaper shack is finally hauled away and you
>move away.
Why? It won't change a thing. I'll still be reading and
posting, here and you will still be nothing more than a vaccuous
whiner and a troll.
However, if you are so anxious for us to move, you gonna help
load up the van? I could honestly use the help.
>Your ignorant hillbilly shtick, about living in a place built in a
>weekend and lacking running water, has turned out to be accurate,
>ironically.
Without running water? From where, exactly did you pull that
one?
AH! I noticed that you didn't respond to the points I made and
are simply going to the trusty, rusty bucket of ad mominems to
divert attention from the fact that you have nothing to offer
except some lame innane threats involving firearms.
>Being mistaken for Kathy's father is a hoot.
Yer hand being mistaken for yer "luv bug" is equally funny.
Moreso, if you consider that the mistake that *you* made
regarding my relationship with Kathy is simply a matter of a
bottle of hair color while yer hand is stuck with the life you
give it.
One would imagine that, with all of yer money, you could afford
to by a regular prostiture and give the hand a rest.
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>Glen Appleby <gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>
>>Entering a home without a warrant *is* the point of CPS. They
>>can do it with permission or they can simply get a warrant. In
>>either case, they can and do do it.
>>
>>You can cry or threaten (lamely, as usual) all that you want.
>>The facts before us are the facts.
>
>Do you even understand the point of the various branches of our
>government? Saying that, because a law exists and is being
>enforced, it must not be challengable or unconstitutional is
>ridiculous.
I have yet to either say or imply that what exists is either
Constitutional, Unconstitutional, changeable or not.
I am only saying that (1) it is what it presently is and (2) what
I describe has impacted millions of ordinary people. If even 1%
of them found it wrong enough to hire a lawyer and only 1% of
those was able to afford a *good* lawyer, then doncha think that
it would have been outlawed or overturned by now? It has (to
clairfy) been going on since the mid 70s so time shouldn't really
be an excuse.
I was asked to give an example of where the Constitution is out
of date / inapplicable. I did just that.
Now *you* cry that it can be changed. OK, mouth, do it!
Hell, as useless as I find your posts to be, I'll support you if
you even *try* to change it.
However, like with Tim, I strongly suspect that my vote is safe
.. safe for use on better graft and corruption.
Tim May
<gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:34:12 -0700, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim May
> <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <3b8a8940...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
> ><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Entering a home without a warrant *is* the point of CPS. They
> >> can do it with permission or they can simply get a warrant. In
> >> either case, they can and do do it.
> >
> >And I promise to shoot to kill anyone so entering my house.
>
> More TimTroll.
>
> Even with a warrant, huh, Tim? Anything to get yer name in the
> papers *one* last time.
"so entering."
Perhaps when you are in the Sacramento area, while Kathy is working you
can work on your high school equivalency degree.
--Tim May
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <3b8aad4b...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> More TimTroll.
>>
>> Even with a warrant, huh, Tim? Anything to get yer name in the
>> papers *one* last time.
>
>"so entering."
And? See what I wrote was "Entering a home without a warrant
*is* the point of CPS. They can do it with permission or they
can simply get a warrant. In either case, they can and do do
it." which clearly suggests that, if you don't invite them, they
will *get* a warrant.
At no point was a warrantless invasion even suggested, except by
the most self-generating paranoids among us.
You do need serious help. With all yer declaired buk$, I sure
hope that you get it.
Rich Seifert
> On 27 Aug 2001 12:40:23 -0700, in
> ba.mountain-folk,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>
> >but they're not examples of where the
> >Constitution lacks definitive answers. For example, the
> >Constitution says that the situation described with CPS (taking
> >children from their parents without due process) is illegal.
>
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that? I'm honestly
> curious because I haven't see it.
>
It's right in the Fourth Amendment (emphases are mine):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, HOUSES, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the
PERSONS or things TO BE SEIZED."
One of the nice things about the Constitution is that it does not have to
(nor try to) enumerate every possible situation, such as which houses may
be searched, or what items or persons may be seized. The statements cover
ALL houses, and ALL items and persons, unless exception is explicitly
stated. Note that no exceptions are granted in the Fourth Amendment to the
protection against searches and seizures (or anywhere else in the
Constitution, to the best of my knowledge). Thus, the Fourth Amendment is
clear that the Government cannot search anyone's house or seize any things
or persons within, without a Warrant granted as a result of probable cause
supported by affirmed testimony.
I do wish the Supremes could read...
--
Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
ri...@richseifert.com 21885 Bear Creek Way
(408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 395-1966 FAX
Tim May
wrote:
>
> >Anyone who remembers my "Lawondatanonda" reference deserves a good
> >reply.
>
> I'm deeply ashamed to admit it but I thought it was funny as hell.
Thanks. Frankly, the black race is not doing themselves any favors by
naming their children with such names as Levar, Latasha, Duwayne,
Chawanda, and LeRoy.
"A Boy Named Sue" may have been hilarious, but a girl named Latasha is
never going to be a software engineer at Intel.
> >1. Do nothing. Let them learn to get out there and hustle and stop
> >waiting for Uncle Sam to provide. Some fraction, perhaps as high as 20%
> >in some areas, will die. So? Strong medicine to stop a cancer.
>
> So? Hmm. "20% in some areas"? Where do you come up with a figure
> like that? I assume that you're talking about the U.S. Die of what?
I said "perhaps as high as." Obviously no one knows the future. If as
many as 50% of the bums, winos, and welfare addicts die, so?
>
> >3. Why are they are they here in Santa Cruz? Most of the drifters and
> >tramps arrived from elsewhere...this has been well-documented for 25
> >years. Why did they come to a place with few solid jobs for low-skilled
> >persons? (Because of the climate, because of the herbs, because of the
> >"feed the pigeons" M.O.)
>
> Tell you what - if I was on the streets I'd rather be here than in
> North Dakota or somewhere cold like that.
Sure. We know this. This is why killing the homeless is now being
debated amongst some people I know.
> >4. Where are their families and why are their families not dealing with
> >them? Why should hard-working business owners in Santa Cruz be taxed to
> >pay for bums and derelicts from Chicago and Skokie?
>
> Yeah, but this is kind of silly. If they had good healthy family
> support systems they probably wouldn't be in the shape they're in. So
> what's the point? Then you have the kids, the runaways who've been
> abused. Not everyone has a family, much less a good one.
Giving them or their families an "out" makes things worse. They know
that if Junior gets to be too much of a pain, with his peircings and
his drug use, he can go dine at the public tit in California.
Having people realize that dining at the public tit isn't an option
would make them, on both sides, more willing to deal with the issues at
hand.
> >5. As for the small percentage which are truly crazy, all of the
> >programs to support the lazy bums who choose to smoke weed instead of
> >laying roof shingles are draining any funds for dealing with the very
> >small percentage of truly insane persons.
>
> Should we tax people to care for the truly insane?
No, of course not.
> >Bottom line, we have been feeding the pigeons. And, guess what?, we are
> >now covered in shit from all the pigeons flocking around us.
> >
> >Time to either stop feeding the pigeons, or, if things are out of
> >control, to start poisoning the pigeons.
>
> A lot of what you say makes sense. I have a slight problem with the
> poisoning concept, though. Call me sentimental.
>
> You didn't address the issue of masses of people suddenly out of work
> through no fault of their own; just curious how strict your line is
> around "no taxation for charity"...
People "suddenly out of work"...
First, they should have saved. I did when I was working for a start-up
company. I sacrificed and I saved. I saw people around men spending
their paychecks on blow and on expensive vacations.
Second, why are those "suddenly out of work" doing things like laying
roofing shingles?
I just paid $10K to have a new roof put on my house, and I talked to a
few of the mostly-Mexican workers and to the foreman. Deadbeats won't
do the jobs that these Mexicans will do. In 20 years, many of these
Mexicans will have homes of their own, while most of the San Lorenzo
River deadbeats will be long dead of overdoses or will be, if they
survive, whining about their "benefits."
How can we so heavily tax workers who work two jobs a day (*) so as to
give the money to deadbeats, tramps, and winos.
(* The "tear-off" foreman works a full day supervising a crew of
Mexicans doing roof tear-offs and then works the swing shift at a local
tannery. And on weekends he either does site clean-up or high-weed
mowing. A complete workaholic. He had nothing but disdain for the
fairies and simps who sleep down by the river and cadge for spare
change and moan about their "benefits.")
We're fed up with government taking our money to give to pigeons.
It's time to start poisoning the pigeons.
--Tim May
Mike Parrish
> In article <3B8A6545...@bigbellybear.com>, Poppa
> <po...@bigbellybear.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tim's right to hold and bear arms I agree. Sorry folks I know there are
> > many problems with this
> > including the untimely deaths of children. However, and this is conjecture on
> > my part, Tim and he's
> > militia may need to over throw the government at some time. If ever King
> > George should rise again I
> > would urge Tim to take action, I know I will.
I agree with you Poppa.
However, having Tim "Gee what a scary fuck I am, no really" May on the
same side means that all attempts to have a reasonably intelligent
discussion of the merits is tossed out the window to rabid posing.
> Lincoln was the first of the fascists to arise, Roosevelt was a Lincoln
> wannabee.
>
> As for "rising up," it's started. The destruction of a ZOG center in
> Oklahoma City, the bombings of fascists outposts, the spread of
> untraceable crypto tools for building cells....
*yawn*
All your militia needs now is to make some nice posters and hold a
bake sale.
Mike
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,ri...@richseifert.com (Rich Seifert) wrote:
>In article <3b8aaba0...@cnews.newsguy.com>, gl...@cruzio.com wrote:
>
>> On 27 Aug 2001 12:40:23 -0700, in
>> ba.mountain-folk,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>>
>> >but they're not examples of where the
>> >Constitution lacks definitive answers. For example, the
>> >Constitution says that the situation described with CPS (taking
>> >children from their parents without due process) is illegal.
>>
>> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that? I'm honestly
>> curious because I haven't see it.
>
>It's right in the Fourth Amendment (emphases are mine):
>
>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, HOUSES, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
>and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or
>affirmation, and particularly describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the
>PERSONS or things TO BE SEIZED."
Ah, but you see the part about "probable cause"? They are in
free.
See, what happens is that a person calls CPS and *says* that
there is a problem with the welfare of a child. CPS *has* to
investigate. Why? Because they are protecting the child.
It would be much like someone calling about a domestic
disturbance. The cops have to go take a look see. Someone
resists and they just up the anti.
Now, I can see Tim come screaming in here about how he would
fight them off with the heavy stash of weapons that he *says*
that he owns (but Tim is known to have a big mouth but, if we
believe what he says about how much he pays to the IRS, little
brains), but we have seen where that leads.
>One of the nice things about the Constitution is that it does not have to
>(nor try to) enumerate every possible situation, such as which houses may
>be searched, or what items or persons may be seized. The statements cover
>ALL houses, and ALL items and persons, unless exception is explicitly
>stated. Note that no exceptions are granted in the Fourth Amendment to the
>protection against searches and seizures (or anywhere else in the
>Constitution, to the best of my knowledge). Thus, the Fourth Amendment is
>clear that the Government cannot search anyone's house or seize any things
>or persons within, without a Warrant granted as a result of probable cause
>supported by affirmed testimony.
Apparently what is being done in the CPS cases seems to comply
just fine with the Constitution. Either that or *somebody* is
paying off a hell of a lot of somebodys in order to let this all
continue illegally.
The guy who wrote and got the law passed to begin with has been
dead for a few years now so we can be *pretty* sure that *he*
isn't behind all of this.
Eh, maybe his next of kin has a consession on the residual graft.
>I do wish the Supremes could read...
And I so wish that so many people didn't pin their hopes to
thyings that were so out of date that they are gotten around so
easily the they might as well not exist at all.
Tim May
<gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:11:48 -0800, in
> ba.mountain-folk,ri...@richseifert.com (Rich Seifert) wrote:
>
> Ah, but you see the part about "probable cause"? They are in
> free.
>
> See, what happens is that a person calls CPS and *says* that
> there is a problem with the welfare of a child. CPS *has* to
> investigate. Why? Because they are protecting the child.
The Constitution says they are to seek a warrant. This is black letter
law. They simply do not get to enter houses on mere suspicion. Read the
Constitution.
Appleby, someone ought to kill you.
--Tim May
John R Pierce
CPS can't and won't enter your house without permission. Period.
Further, they will call first and make an appointment. However
refusing them entry will be treated as though 'you have something to
hide' in your soon to be growing CPS case file which likely will be
used as evidence against you in court.
-jrp
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <3b8ae63...@cnews.newsguy.com>, Glen Appleby
><gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, but you see the part about "probable cause"? They are in
>> free.
>>
>> See, what happens is that a person calls CPS and *says* that
>> there is a problem with the welfare of a child. CPS *has* to
>> investigate. Why? Because they are protecting the child.
>
>The Constitution says they are to seek a warrant.
Not exactly, now does it.
They have probable cause AND in most instances, the parents
permission, such as it is.
>This is black letter
>law. They simply do not get to enter houses on mere suspicion.
Probable cause.
>Appleby, someone ought to kill you.
And I am sure that you are *just* the "man" to do that, right?
Well, assuming that you can stop fondeling yer cats long enough
and get ahold of a *real* weapon.
Jeff Liebermann
Seifert) wrote:
>One of the nice things about the Constitution is that it does not have to
>(nor try to) enumerate every possible situation, such as which houses may
>be searched, or what items or persons may be seized. The statements cover
>ALL houses, and ALL items and persons, unless exception is explicitly
>stated. Note that no exceptions are granted in the Fourth Amendment to the
>protection against searches and seizures (or anywhere else in the
>Constitution, to the best of my knowledge). Thus, the Fourth Amendment is
>clear that the Government cannot search anyone's house or seize any things
>or persons within, without a Warrant granted as a result of probable cause
>supported by affirmed testimony.
>
>I do wish the Supremes could read...
They can read all too well. The problem is deconstructionism or the
attempt by various courts to guess what was the *INTENT* of the
authors of the constitution and various laws. Those that actually
read the law the way it was written, instead of dwelving between the
lines, are called "strict constitutionalists" or "states rights",
which are apparently derogatory terms. This has also resulted in many
laws being written quite sloppily, with little interest in accuracy,
since the courts will interpret by intent rather than by content.
In many cases, the high court interpreted the "intent" of the authors
quite differently from the authors themselves. It was disgusting to
watch Hubert Humphrey, one of the principle authors of many civil
rights laws, declare that quotas were never even a consideration,
while the Supreme Court declared quotas to have been his intent.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)426-1240 fax (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com WB6SSY
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Glen Appleby
Pierce <sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
>CPS can't and won't enter your house without permission. Period.
True.
>Further, they will call first and make an appointment.
On which planet?
I know that, in the good auld daze in Canada, CPS (DFS, there)
had a whole different attitude to the one that they have here.
If they got a complaint, they would go an *offer* the parents
help -- no strings. The parents could accept it or reject it.
Recently, though, they have become almost as "punitive" as they
are here.
An *appointment*, though?
>However
>refusing them entry will be treated as though 'you have something to
>hide' in your soon to be growing CPS case file which likely will be
>used as evidence against you in court.
This again misses the point.
They come out to check on the welfare of the child. CPS has no
ability to press any sort of charges against the parents. They
*will* gain entry to verrify the welfare of the children. Either
the parents will let them in when they ask or they will have the
friendly policeman stop by with a warrant. Which way they gain
entrance has little bearing on their job.
Now, if in their investigation, they find that there may be a
strong case of parental guilt, they may turn the information over
to the DA to prosecute.
But that is irrelevant to what they decide or do about the
children.
If they decide that the child is in danger, they will remove the
child from the home. They may do this independant of whether the
parent may be *criminally* guilty of abuse.
Glen Appleby
Myers <d...@best.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
>Tim May wrote:
>
>> We're fed up with government taking our money to give to pigeons.
>
>> It's time to start poisoning the pigeons.
>
>Ho hum. And I thought Tim was getting smart.
Find some good stash?
What might have lead you to think that? Certinally not his
posts.
>The government obstructs
>more entitlements than it doles out. The lion's share of your poverty tax
>dollar goes to the poverty pimps to do this. Very little of your tax
>dollar actually goes to the poor.
I don't think that Tim's useless rants have anything to do with
how the charity buk$ are spent -- he doesn't want *any* spent.
However, to stay with your point, I do find it rather amazing
that the Welfare Workers make in excess of $25k a year (plus
bennies and retirement) while Welfare recepients get less than
$10k a year. Then, of course, there is the entire heirarchy of
supervision, making bunches more than the Welfare Workers.
>That is why they are poor. If they try
>to make more than their pithens, like wurking, they are accused of welfare
>fraud.
Another irony.
We like to pay political appointees huge bucks to get them to
work for government instead of private industry. We pay
politicians huge amounts so that they are less inclined to take
bribes (but it clearly doesn't work).
Then we complain because people are on Welfare for generations
and pass laws to get them off after a coupla years; and while
they are on Welfare, pay them somewhat less than is required to
just survive (even if extreemly frugle).
And we say that they are "bad" if they show some incentive as far
as making enough money to make up the difference between their
rent (in a crap house) and the Welfare check.
A study was done some years ago. A group of primates were kept
in environments where the mothers had to really struggle to find
enough food. The babies grew up to be less self-assured, more
anxious, and tending toward poorer social interactions -- as
opposed to those who grew up being cared for properly.
As we look around at our society, what do we see? People who are
less self-assured, people who are more anxious, people who
interact poorly with others?
Now, I'm not suggesting that this is due *completely* to Welfare.
In fact, I can just imagine Tim frothing at the mouth as he types
out something about doing away with Welfare to solve these
problems. Whipe yer screen, Tim. (backing off on the medication
may help with that excess spittle, but the meds doen't seem to be
working, anyway, so I suggest talking to yer shrink and getting
the meds changed)
What makes *more* sense to do is to give Welfare recipients
*more* -- say pay them the same as Welfare Workers -- and this
could be done by lowering the wages of Welfare Workers a bit.
But don't make the recepiends struggle to simply survive!
Rich Seifert
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:11:48 -0800, in
> ba.mountain-folk,ri...@richseifert.com (Rich Seifert) wrote:
>
> >It's right in the Fourth Amendment (emphases are mine):
> >
> >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, HOUSES, papers, and
> >effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
> >and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or
> >affirmation, and particularly describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the
> >PERSONS or things TO BE SEIZED."
>
> Ah, but you see the part about "probable cause"? They are in
> free.
>
> See, what happens is that a person calls CPS and *says* that
> there is a problem with the welfare of a child. CPS *has* to
> investigate. Why? Because they are protecting the child.
>
Read the passage again. Probable cause is not the gating element to
ENTERING the home, it is the gating element to *obtaining a WARRANT* to
enter the home. The statement that "there is a problem with the welfare of
a child" must be sufficient to convince a judge to issue a warrant. The
Constitution relies on the wisdom of judges to determine whether the "Oath
or affirmation" truly provides probable cause.
> It would be much like someone calling about a domestic
> disturbance. The cops have to go take a look see. Someone
> resists and they just up the anti.
>
No, same rules apply. If someone reports a domestic disturbance, the police
can go to the home and REQUEST that the owner allow them to enter and
investigate. The owner can stand at the door and say, "Do you have a
warrant?", and deny admission without one. Of course, if the police, while
at the door, *directly observe* a crime (e.g., see or hear someone beating
their spouse/child/cat, then they are empowered to act to stop the crime
and apprehend the criminal. However, if all is quiet at the door, and the
owner refuses entry, they cannot enter upon the word of a neighbor-report
without a warrant.
> Now, I can see Tim come screaming in here about how he would
> fight them off with the heavy stash of weapons that he *says*
> that he owns (but Tim is known to have a big mouth but, if we
> believe what he says about how much he pays to the IRS, little
> brains), but we have seen where that leads.
>
I can't speak for Tim. However, everyone in *my* household knows that, if a
policeperson shows up at the door requesting entry or asking questions, the
proper response is a calm but determined "Do you have a warrant?" or "Am I
under arrest?". Barring either, no one is obligated to permit entry to
their home or undergo an interrogation. I am prepared to defend my home and
the persons within it with the use of all legal force (perhaps not to the
level of Tim's avowed arsenal); I would most likely try to avoid a gunfight
with the police.
> >One of the nice things about the Constitution is that it does not have to
> >(nor try to) enumerate every possible situation, such as which houses may
> >be searched, or what items or persons may be seized. The statements cover
> >ALL houses, and ALL items and persons, unless exception is explicitly
> >stated. Note that no exceptions are granted in the Fourth Amendment to the
> >protection against searches and seizures (or anywhere else in the
> >Constitution, to the best of my knowledge). Thus, the Fourth Amendment is
> >clear that the Government cannot search anyone's house or seize any things
> >or persons within, without a Warrant granted as a result of probable cause
> >supported by affirmed testimony.
>
> Apparently what is being done in the CPS cases seems to comply
> just fine with the Constitution. Either that or *somebody* is
> paying off a hell of a lot of somebodys in order to let this all
> continue illegally.
>
As stated in an earlier post, don't confuse continuity (or apathy) with
compliance. There are a lot of things that our Government does that violate
both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Such acts range from the
CPS activities discussed here, to property seizure at the time of arrest
for drug-related crimes (before even a trial), to conducting wars without
the consent of Congress.
That these actions continue is a sign not of their legality, but of the
unwillingness of judges to declare them illegal (and to a certain extent,
the apathy of the People and their unwillingness to speak out agains them).
Much of this is political, as the judges are often selected based on their
willingness to go along with the policies of the politicians who appoint
them.
> The guy who wrote and got the law passed to begin with has been
> dead for a few years now so we can be *pretty* sure that *he*
> isn't behind all of this.
>
No, but the political party to which he belonged is probably still in
business, and the alliance between the politicians and judges continues.
> Eh, maybe his next of kin has a consession on the residual graft.
>
> >I do wish the Supremes could read...
>
> And I so wish that so many people didn't pin their hopes to
> thyings that were so out of date that they are gotten around so
> easily the they might as well not exist at all.
>
Yes, what has become so "out of date" is common sense, the ability of
judges to judge, and the idea that people (including judges and
politicians) should be responsible for their actions. I agree that these
things no longer appear to exist at all.
Neal Tucker
>>However
>>refusing them entry will be treated as though 'you have something to
>>hide' in your soon to be growing CPS case file which likely will be
>>used as evidence against you in court.
>
>This again misses the point.
>
>They come out to check on the welfare of the child. CPS has no
>ability to press any sort of charges against the parents. They
>*will* gain entry to verrify the welfare of the children. Either
>the parents will let them in when they ask or they will have the
>friendly policeman stop by with a warrant.
Out of curiosity, do you feel that a parent not allowing CPS to
enter his or her house should be "probable cause" for getting a
warrant to enter? I don't.
-Neal Tucker
John R Pierce
wrote:
Not by itself, no, I don't. And, in fact, I'm sure it will only be
one of many things presented to the judge. Don't get me wrong, I'm
not a fan of CPS as it operates here in Santa Cruz. From what I
gather, many CPS cases are initiated by counselers at school. when
they observe various signs of potential problems, they are obligated
by law to report this to CPS. CPS then assigns a case worker to the
family, who will show up at the school, pull the kid from class,
interview them, interview the teachers, other kids, etc, and try to
pull out anything they can to further justify a 'intervention'. Then
they will either door knock if its a severe case (likely signs of
beatings, or whatever), or call the parents and ask for a in-home
meeting if its percieved 'emotional abuse'.
My kid (top 1 percentile math/reading, a bit of a loner) was going
thru a bit of pre-adolescent depression over something silly last year
(I think the actual trigger was a couple of 'scenes' around the house
revolving around him needing to clean his room, resulting in, among
other things, banning him from TV, Video, and computer games for a
couple of weeks). In retaliation, he wrote a kinda funky essay in
school (3rd grade). This got turned over to CPS by the school.
Before we'd heard *anything* of this, CPS had interviewed *BOTH* of my
kids (the boy in question, and his then 5 year old sister). The case
worker was a newbie, and was rather obnoxious, he started tossing
threats around at my wife when she questioned this intrusive process.
My wife got totally pissed off, and was about to try and sic a lawyer
on CPS... We also talked with a well recommended local psychologist
who calmed her down, and defused the whole situatation, went around
the case worker to his manager who after a brief consultation dropped
the whole thing flat. Apparently the case worker was also shuffled
off front line work. Meanwhile, said kid has been seeing this shrink
on a fairly regular basis, and is doing much better socially and seems
generally happier.
SO. Yeah, they are way intrusive. This sort of case should never
have gotten in the front door. OTOH, when you have situations with
ongoing physical abuse, *someone* has to intervene. Its a tough
balance, and I don't know the answer.
Neal Tucker
>
>I am only saying that (1) it is what it presently is and (2) what
>I describe has impacted millions of ordinary people. If even 1%
>of them found it wrong enough to hire a lawyer and only 1% of
>those was able to afford a *good* lawyer, then doncha think that
>it would have been outlawed or overturned by now?
Well, no, considering that it hasn't. Would you argue that any
law that's been around a couple decades must therefore be
constitutional? That's what it sounds like.
>Now *you* cry that it can be changed. OK, mouth, do it!
>
>Hell, as useless as I find your posts to be, I'll support you if
>you even *try* to change it.
Oh, I see. The fact that I don't actively devote my time to
fighting laws I disagree with means that I should refrain from
discussing them. Great "put up or shut up" attitude which
stifles open dialogue and prevents people from questioning
authority. After all, if the laws exist, they must be good.
Strange attitude for an old hippie, but far be it from me to
understand hippie logic.
-Neal Tucker
Neal Tucker
>ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>>
>>TBO was asking for examples of things the Constitution fails
>>to address.
>
>Yup, kinda.
>
>I said :
>
>"Clearly though, what is there falls short of having definitive
>answers to many of the situations that are faced today."
>
>And Art asked for examples. I gave some.
No, you didn't. You gave examples where the Consitution is being
ignored. It perfectly addresses the examples you gave. Given the
CPS example, the Consitution specifically says that the police do
not have the authority to enter our homes without a warrant, and
that obtaining a warrant requires probable cause. This means that
some step in the CPS intervention process is unconstitutional,
whether it's the police barging in without a warrant, or a warrant
being issued without real probable cause (refusing entry to CPS is
not, as far as I know, probable cause). The fact that CPS is
operating in this manner is *not* evidence that the Constitution
fails to cover this case.
-Neal Tucker
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>Out of curiosity, do you feel that a parent not allowing CPS to
>enter his or her house should be "probable cause" for getting a
>warrant to enter?
Absolutely not!
Do keep in mind that, in these posts, I wasn't describing what
*I* felt. I have kept pretty much to the facts -- what is.
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,ri...@richseifert.com (Rich Seifert) wrote:
>In article <3b8ae63...@cnews.newsguy.com>, gl...@cruzio.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:11:48 -0800, in
>> ba.mountain-folk,ri...@richseifert.com (Rich Seifert) wrote:
>>
>> >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, HOUSES, papers, and
>> >effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
>> >and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or
>> >affirmation, and particularly describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the
>> >PERSONS or things TO BE SEIZED."
>>
>> Ah, but you see the part about "probable cause"? They are in
>> free.
>>
>> See, what happens is that a person calls CPS and *says* that
>> there is a problem with the welfare of a child. CPS *has* to
>> investigate. Why? Because they are protecting the child.
>
>Read the passage again. Probable cause is not the gating element to
>ENTERING the home, it is the gating element to *obtaining a WARRANT* to
>enter the home.
Thus, the bottom line is the same. If they have probable cause,
they go to the door and ask for entry to investigate. If it is
denied, the next (easy) step is calling and asking for a warrant.
Either way, they gain access. The difference may be as little as
about 5 minutes.
>The statement that "there is a problem with the welfare of
>a child" must be sufficient to convince a judge to issue a warrant. The
>Constitution relies on the wisdom of judges to determine whether the "Oath
>or affirmation" truly provides probable cause.
Again, in practice, it is the same.
However, below, you suggest that the judges are less than
completely trustworthy. About that I have *no* disagreement (in
general).
>> It would be much like someone calling about a domestic
>> disturbance. The cops have to go take a look see. Someone
>> resists and they just up the anti.
>
>No, same rules apply. If someone reports a domestic disturbance, the police
>can go to the home and REQUEST that the owner allow them to enter and
>investigate. The owner can stand at the door and say, "Do you have a
>warrant?", and deny admission without one. Of course, if the police, while
>at the door, *directly observe* a crime (e.g., see or hear someone beating
>their spouse/child/cat, then they are empowered to act to stop the crime
>and apprehend the criminal. However, if all is quiet at the door, and the
>owner refuses entry, they cannot enter upon the word of a neighbor-report
>without a warrant.
However, if the police happen to see evidence of the crime (say
that the spouse is in the background and recently bruised) in
they come.
>> Now, I can see Tim come screaming in here about how he would
>> fight them off with the heavy stash of weapons that he *says*
>> that he owns (but Tim is known to have a big mouth but, if we
>> believe what he says about how much he pays to the IRS, little
>> brains), but we have seen where that leads.
>
>I can't speak for Tim. However, everyone in *my* household knows that, if a
>policeperson shows up at the door requesting entry or asking questions, the
>proper response is a calm but determined "Do you have a warrant?" or "Am I
>under arrest?". Barring either, no one is obligated to permit entry to
>their home or undergo an interrogation. I am prepared to defend my home and
>the persons within it with the use of all legal force (perhaps not to the
>level of Tim's avowed arsenal); I would most likely try to avoid a gunfight
>with the police.
That shows common sense -- something that Tim only knows how to
spell.
>> Apparently what is being done in the CPS cases seems to comply
>> just fine with the Constitution. Either that or *somebody* is
>> paying off a hell of a lot of somebodys in order to let this all
>> continue illegally.
>
>As stated in an earlier post, don't confuse continuity (or apathy) with
>compliance. There are a lot of things that our Government does that violate
>both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Such acts range from the
>CPS activities discussed here, to property seizure at the time of arrest
>for drug-related crimes (before even a trial), to conducting wars without
>the consent of Congress.
And the constant (almost) ignoring of the Constitution makes it,
for all practical purposes, void.
I fully accept that all of this stuff is against the
Constitution. The people who ignore the Constitution are bad,
bad, bad. So? This is the reality in which we seem to be
living.
Wanna suggest an alternative?
>That these actions continue is a sign not of their legality, but of the
>unwillingness of judges to declare them illegal (and to a certain extent,
>the apathy of the People and their unwillingness to speak out agains them).
Oh, I hear people speak out against them all of the time -- both
on the net and IRL. It ranges all of the was from deranged
loonies like Tim all of the way to the nice family down the road
who had their kids snatched because some person had a grudge
against them and called CPS.
Yes, there are people (like my parents) who just go along,
thinking that everything is fine. To them *I* am a rabble-rouser
and a troublemaker. Gawd, they would shit if they ever met Tim!
Now, I don't know what percentage of the population is
represented by people like my parents. I *think* it is a
dwindeling number.
So, exactly to whom does one speak out? Is there some Authority
In Charge of such matters?
No *not* suggest my Representative. He is too busy trying to get
it on with some intern (male or female, I neither know nor care).
>Much of this is political, as the judges are often selected based on their
>willingness to go along with the policies of the politicians who appoint
>them.
Problem number next in a long string of closely related problems.
>> The guy who wrote and got the law passed to begin with has been
>> dead for a few years now so we can be *pretty* sure that *he*
>> isn't behind all of this.
>
>No, but the political party to which he belonged is probably still in
>business, and the alliance between the politicians and judges continues.
Look, the laws relating to CPS have become nothing more than a
way of transferring money from the feds to the locals, bypassing
much, if any, benefit to the people. The party simply doesn't
matter.
>> >I do wish the Supremes could read...
>>
>> And I so wish that so many people didn't pin their hopes to
>> thyings that were so out of date that they are gotten around so
>> easily the they might as well not exist at all.
>
>Yes, what has become so "out of date" is common sense, the ability of
>judges to judge, and the idea that people (including judges and
>politicians) should be responsible for their actions. I agree that these
>things no longer appear to exist at all.
Now, remind me ... what part of the Constitution describes and
controlls common sense?
Neal Tucker
>
>I fully accept that all of this stuff is against the
>Constitution.
Damn it, Glen, this is what makes having a conversation with you
so frustrating. You originally claimed that the Constitution fails
to even cover this issue, and now you confirm that you believe it
is against the Constitution. I didn't jump into this thread because
I'm an anti-CPS nut. I got into it because I disagreed with your
attitude that the Constitution doesn't say anything about lots of
modern issues. Now you're saying that it does say something about
these issues, and we're going against it. If that's your position,
we're in agreement.
>The people who ignore the Constitution are bad,
>bad, bad. So? This is the reality in which we seem to be
>living.
So you get people to realize what's wrong and vote out lousy laws
and lousy lawmakers. I think discussions like this help, in a
small way. Look at it this way. If you manage to convince
everyone that it's a lost cause, we're screwed. If people like me
manage to convince everyone that they should piss and moan about
these things, and vote the way they feel, we're making progress --
even if we're not out there directly challenging laws.
-Neal Tucker
Glen Appleby
ba.mountain-folk,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>Glen Appleby <gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>
>>I am only saying that (1) it is what it presently is and (2) what
>>I describe has impacted millions of ordinary people. If even 1%
>>of them found it wrong enough to hire a lawyer and only 1% of
>>those was able to afford a *good* lawyer, then doncha think that
>>it would have been outlawed or overturned by now?
>
>Well, no, considering that it hasn't. Would you argue that any
>law that's been around a couple decades must therefore be
>constitutional? That's what it sounds like.
Then ya might wanna clean out yer ears. Tim may have some
explosives that you could use.
I am *suggesting* that, as "good" as the Constitution may have
been, as much as it "allowed" for change, the appropriate changes
have not occured and the Constitution has not been upheld.
That simply suggests that it is a well-meaning, but vaccuous
document.
>>Now *you* cry that it can be changed. OK, mouth, do it!
>>
>>Hell, as useless as I find your posts to be, I'll support you if
>>you even *try* to change it.
>
>Oh, I see. The fact that I don't actively devote my time to
>fighting laws I disagree with means that I should refrain from
>discussing them.
Not quite. You were "suggesting" that the people could change it
if it were wrong. I would like to see how it is done. Do you
*know* or are you just shooting off your mouth ... again?
>Great "put up or shut up" attitude which
>stifles open dialogue and prevents people from questioning
>authority.
<LOL!!> Lad, my first VW bug had a decal on the side window which
said "Ignore Alien Orders". Aside from the great leg room in the
car, I enjoyed that about the car more than anything else.
If you would talk to the local law enforcement about me, you
would be embarassed at how far off you are with that suggestion.
But I notice that it is you (along with yer mentor, Tim) who
seems to be supporting the authority of the Constitution without
question.
>After all, if the laws exist, they must be good.
Are you building strawmen professionally or is this just another
of yer useless hobbies?
If you built one with a vagina, I'm sure Tim would be interested.
Rich Seifert
> I fully accept that all of this stuff is against the
> Constitution. The people who ignore the Constitution are bad,
> bad, bad. So? This is the reality in which we seem to be
> living.
>
> Wanna suggest an alternative?
>
At this time, the only practical alternative is to try to elect
representatives (and judges) who understand the situation and are willing
to work to fix it. I acknowledge that this is difficult given the power of
the major parties (neither of which wants to change anything in any way
that will reduce their power).
>
> Yes, there are people (like my parents) who just go along,
> thinking that everything is fine. To them *I* am a rabble-rouser
> and a troublemaker.
Same here.
>
> Now, I don't know what percentage of the population is
> represented by people like my parents. I *think* it is a
> dwindeling number.
>
If so, then that is a good sign. As the percentage of people that care
increases, the probability that things may change also increases.
> So, exactly to whom does one speak out? Is there some Authority
> In Charge of such matters?
>
Yes, it's in the ballot box. (Unless you also believe that elections are
completely rigged.)
> Look, the laws relating to CPS have become nothing more than a
> way of transferring money from the feds to the locals, bypassing
> much, if any, benefit to the people.
Money has a lot to do with a LOT of "faulty" legislation. In some police
departments, drug-related seizures represent a significant portion of their
total funding. Why go to the trouble of raising taxes (and looking like a
bad guy in the process) when you can just take someone's
house/boat/car/business instead in the name of "justice"?
>
> Now, remind me ... what part of the Constitution describes and
> controlls common sense?
>
This is one thing that cannot be legislated. If our politicians, leaders,
and judges lack common sense, then all is lost. No amount of legislation
can fix this problem. For two *absolutely wonderful* books on this exact
subject, check out "The Death of Common Sense--How Law is Suffocating
America"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446672289/qid=999034869/sr=2-1/ref=a
ps_sr_b_1_1/103-1143053-0825429
and "The Lost Art of Drawing the Line--How Fairness Went Too Far"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375504222/qid=999034948/sr=2-1/103-1
143053-0825429
both by Philip Howard. The books are "fun reads", with lots of examples,
but with a clear insight into some fundamental places where this country
has veered from its founding principles.
Glen Appleby
Myers <d...@best.com> wrote:
>Tim is a very charitable minded person. Or else he wouldn't be here
>saying what he says. True charity goes without reward. Charity does not
>go to politics, but people here can agree or disagree with him and his
>politics. There are others on both left and right who would not allow
>this usenet discussion if they were in control. If this newsgroup were
>moderated, I'd trust Tim as a moderator a thousand times more than I'd
>trust Lenore Levine.
Even after you continued to post drivel from sweet Becky, I
*wanted* to give you a chance. *Honestly* I did!
But your character assessment of both Tim and Lenore shows that
you are maybe almost in need of as much help as is Tim. You
couldn't be more wrong on both.
Neal Tucker
>been, as much as it "allowed" for change, the appropriate changes
>have not occured and the Constitution has not been upheld.
We should work on getting people to realize that, not giving up.
In my opinion, the Constitution doesn't *need* any changes in
order to deal with the CPS laws. It very clearly indicates that
they are wrong. What changes would you make in this instance?
>You were "suggesting" that the people could change it
>if it were wrong. I would like to see how it is done. Do you
>*know* or are you just shooting off your mouth ... again?
One way to change the laws is to try to influence the attitudes
of the general public towards respecting the basic principles
that we think makes this a good country, as opposed to ignoring
those principles.
>>Great "put up or shut up" attitude which
>>stifles open dialogue and prevents people from questioning
>>authority.
>
><LOL!!> Lad, my first VW bug had a decal on the side window which
>said "Ignore Alien Orders". Aside from the great leg room in the
>car, I enjoyed that about the car more than anything else.
And I like pie. The relevance is about the same.
>>After all, if the laws exist, they must be good.
>
>Are you building strawmen professionally or is this just another
>of yer useless hobbies?
Straw man? I'm just trying to follow your line of thinking. As
far as I can tell, it's "if the CPS laws are unconsitutional,
doncha think they would have been overturned by now?" Do I need
to point out the error in this reasoning?
-Neal Tucker
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,ri...@richseifert.com (Rich Seifert) wrote:
>In article <3b8bee94...@cnews.newsguy.com>, gl...@cruzio.com wrote:
>
>> Wanna suggest an alternative?
>
>At this time, the only practical alternative is to try to elect
>representatives (and judges) who understand the situation and are willing
>to work to fix it. I acknowledge that this is difficult given the power of
>the major parties (neither of which wants to change anything in any way
>that will reduce their power).
Exactly. Unfortunately, for it to make a difference we have to
both find and elect some large number of those people.
It wouldn't even have to be a majority -- just a notable minority
should be enough to cause them to either take notice or run for
the hills.
But where do we find these people and, if we can find and elect
them, how do we assure ourselves that they won't get bought off
just like most of the others?
>> Now, I don't know what percentage of the population is
>> represented by people like my parents. I *think* it is a
>> dwindeling number.
>
>If so, then that is a good sign. As the percentage of people that care
>increases, the probability that things may change also increases.
Cripes! We just went from a .001% chance of making meaningful
and positive changes, to .001003%! Let's have a party!
>> So, exactly to whom does one speak out? Is there some Authority
>> In Charge of such matters?
>
>Yes, it's in the ballot box. (Unless you also believe that elections are
>completely rigged.)
I don't necessairly believe one way or the other, but let's just
say that because the ballots are secret, there is lots of room
for creativity, there.
Now *maybe* if two people like Carter and Ford (two of the more
honerable politicians in recent memory) were to monitor all
elections, I'd feel more confident. Unfortunately, they don't
have enough years left to do a good job of monetering a single
nation-wide election before at least one of them dies.
>> Look, the laws relating to CPS have become nothing more than a
>> way of transferring money from the feds to the locals, bypassing
>> much, if any, benefit to the people.
>
>Money has a lot to do with a LOT of "faulty" legislation. In some police
>departments, drug-related seizures represent a significant portion of their
>total funding. Why go to the trouble of raising taxes (and looking like a
>bad guy in the process) when you can just take someone's
>house/boat/car/business instead in the name of "justice"?
I fully agree. I am insensed that this sort of thing is
happening at all. I am also bright enough (for obviously lower
values of "bright") to recognize that there is not a single thing
that I can do about it.
>> Now, remind me ... what part of the Constitution describes and
>> controlls common sense?
>
>This is one thing that cannot be legislated.
There, sir, is the rub. This system *depends* on a set of static
documents and common sense.
>If our politicians, leaders,
>and judges lack common sense, then all is lost. No amount of legislation
>can fix this problem.
Now who said that common sense was in short supply? I just saw
some, above.
>For two *absolutely wonderful* books on this exact
>subject, check out "The Death of Common Sense--How Law is Suffocating
>America"
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446672289/qid=999034869/sr=2-1/ref=a
>ps_sr_b_1_1/103-1143053-0825429
>
>and "The Lost Art of Drawing the Line--How Fairness Went Too Far"
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375504222/qid=999034948/sr=2-1/103-1
>143053-0825429
>
>both by Philip Howard. The books are "fun reads", with lots of examples,
>but with a clear insight into some fundamental places where this country
>has veered from its founding principles.
I may actuallly get to both and they sound like fun.
But I *doubt* that either one will convince me of anything that I
don't already see.
What we need is not more yammering about how great the
Constitution is or about how we get back on track (and leave it
to future generations to fight the exact same battle). What we
need is an entirely new perspective ... or maybe even taking a
peek at some old ones that worked very well for 10s if not 100s
of thousands of years.
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>Glen Appleby <gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>
>>I fully accept that all of this stuff is against the
>>Constitution.
>
>Damn it, Glen, this is what makes having a conversation with you
>so frustrating.
Only one of many reasons, I would hope.
>You originally claimed that the Constitution fails
>to even cover this issue, and now you confirm that you believe it
>is against the Constitution.
Not exactly. Yes, it is against the Constitution, but *so*?
Do ya see the National Guard out protecting parents from CPS? Do
you find that the US Army is out preventing knockless entries
into homes?
No?
Well, then, what the hell is the good of the documents telling
everybody how to run the nation if those who are *supposed* to be
working for us are preventing all of the protections that the
Constitution is *supposed* to guarantee?
>I didn't jump into this thread because I'm an anti-CPS nut.
Then .... excatly what type are you?
>I got into it because I disagreed with your
>attitude that the Constitution doesn't say anything about lots of
>modern issues.
And? While it may *say* plenty, (and some of it *may* actually
apply, although it is a very thin thread) but if nobody reads it
to know what it says or if anybody who reads it is
misinterpreting it (intentionally or accidentially), then what
the hell good is it?
>Now you're saying that it does say something about
>these issues, and we're going against it. If that's your position,
>we're in agreement.
Wow! A whole 2 people who *may* be in *some* agreement about
something (if ya squint a bit and ignore the actual details).
Do ya think that the two of us can convince the Army to stop
taking orders from the Shrub and start listening to us, instead?
No?
OK, let's get more real. Perhaps we can convince Congress to
listen to us instead of listening to the lobbiests?
Too many people to convince.
We'll back off to just the Surpreme Court. That's only 12 folks.
Surely we can convinvce them, right?
Oh ... wait -- they have *much* more edikashion in the law than
we do. They wouldn't *possibly* listen to us.
>>The people who ignore the Constitution are bad,
>>bad, bad. So? This is the reality in which we seem to be
>>living.
>
>So you get people to realize what's wrong and vote out lousy laws
>and lousy lawmakers.
And how to accomplish that within my lifetime?
We could *try* using Tim's methods.
I actually know another kook like Tim, from another newsgroup.
He advocates the slow public torture of anybody who disagrees
with him (sound familiar, except for the mewthod of ultimate
death?).
I wouldn't want to live in a country that used methods like
those.
We could try bribery. It has proven itself to be quite
successful in politics. I say let the public have a go at it.
But first we need some source of endless wealth.
I KNOW! Tim *swears* to have far more money than brains! Let's
just use *his* money.
>I think discussions like this help, in a
>small way.
Yes, in a *very* small way. Such a small way than nobody in
politics is even the slightest bit concerned about what we are
saying, here.
>Look at it this way. If you manage to convince
>everyone that it's a lost cause, we're screwed.
Not necessairly.
Some might change their focus and stop going on about the
brilliance of the lost cause.
>If people like me
>manage to convince everyone that they should piss and moan about
>these things, and vote the way they feel, we're making progress --
>even if we're not out there directly challenging laws.
Sounds like what my high skool civics teacher tried to
indoctrinate me with. Skools and government have been pushing
that story since long before I was born. And it got us to
exactly where we are, today.
"Insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expecting
different results."
Eh, I'm crazy, but I'd like a change. The bruise on my forehead
from continously hitting my head against the brick wall is
becoming a tad tiresome.
James Logajan
> Cripes! We just went from a .001% chance of making meaningful
> and positive changes, to .001003%! Let's have a party!
Was it 0.001%? Hell, I didn't know it was that large! Git yer name on the
ballot and I'd vote for ya. I normally only vote Libertarian cause
anarchists, minarchists, and libertarians (lower-case "L" types) generally
don't show up on ballots. Although I did once succumb to narcissism and
wrote my own name in to vote for myself in one of those races for some minor
office where the incumbent goes unchallenged. I lost. ;(
Um, what was the thread about again?
Neal Tucker
>
>Then .... excatly what type are you?
Apparently, the type with nothing better to do than argue about
this stuff with you.
-Neal Tucker
Neal Tucker
>>to even cover this issue, and now you confirm that you believe it
>>is against the Constitution.
>
>Not exactly. Yes, it is against the Constitution, but *so*?
This is my point. You've gone from "the Constitution is so
outdated that it doesn't even cover this stuff" to "yeah, this
stuff is against the Constitution, but who cares?"
Are you still wondering why I would disagree with your original
post where you said the Constitution doesn't cover this stuff?
-Neal Tucker
Tim May
<ntu...@vax.hanford.org> wrote:
One thing Glen never cares about is being consistent. He's gone from
blithering about how CPS doesn't need a warrant because they're
"protecting the children!!" to saying the Constitution doesn't matter
to agreeing that warrantless raids are probably against the C., but
"who cares?"
It's not surprising he lives in a red-tagged shack in the mountains
without power.
He is why TibetBud thinks the Santa Cruz Mountains are Appalachia West.
--Tim May
Tim May
<gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2001 13:35:50 -0700, in
> ba.mountain-folk,ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>
> >Glen Appleby <gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>I am only saying that (1) it is what it presently is and (2) what
> >>I describe has impacted millions of ordinary people. If even 1%
> >>of them found it wrong enough to hire a lawyer and only 1% of
> >>those was able to afford a *good* lawyer, then doncha think that
> >>it would have been outlawed or overturned by now?
> >
> >Well, no, considering that it hasn't. Would you argue that any
> >law that's been around a couple decades must therefore be
> >constitutional? That's what it sounds like.
>
> Then ya might wanna clean out yer ears. Tim may have some
> explosives that you could use.
>
> I am *suggesting* that, as "good" as the Constitution may have
> been, as much as it "allowed" for change, the appropriate changes
> have not occured and the Constitution has not been upheld.
No, you first claimed CPS raids are not unconstitutional, then you
admitted that maybe they were, then you said "who cares?"
I realize this is hillbilly logic, such as it is, but folks really
ought to recognize your lies for what they are.
--Tim May
Tim May
<sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >Out of curiosity, do you feel that a parent not allowing CPS to
> >enter his or her house should be "probable cause" for getting a
> >warrant to enter? I don't.
>
> Not by itself, no, I don't. And, in fact, I'm sure it will only be
> one of many things presented to the judge. Don't get me wrong, I'm
> not a fan of CPS as it operates here in Santa Cruz. From what I
> gather, many CPS cases are initiated by counselers at school. when
> they observe various signs of potential problems, they are obligated
> by law to report this to CPS. CPS then assigns a case worker to the
> family, who will show up at the school, pull the kid from class,
> interview them, interview the teachers, other kids, etc, and try to
> pull out anything they can to further justify a 'intervention'.
Here are some of the things which have been used to "justify an
intervention":
-- a kid drawing pictures of soldiers killing other soldiers (something
nearly all of the boys, except the Future Fairies of America, did in
the 50s and 60s)
-- a kid who in the D.A.R.E. interrogation/self-discovery sessions
makes his "confession" about alcohol in the home, R-rated movies on the
cable system, or any guns in the house
-- any comment about unhappiness or anger in the household
CPS is/are like traffic cops--they have their quotas to fill. They are
not kept employed by the school district if they never file a case, so
they make sure to file their quota of cases every year.
> My kid (top 1 percentile math/reading, a bit of a loner) was going
> thru a bit of pre-adolescent depression over something silly last year
> (I think the actual trigger was a couple of 'scenes' around the house
> revolving around him needing to clean his room, resulting in, among
> other things, banning him from TV, Video, and computer games for a
> couple of weeks). In retaliation, he wrote a kinda funky essay in
> school (3rd grade).
Kids are increasingly being asked to write "self-disclosing essays,"
compared to what they used to be told to do: write essays about
Christopher Columbus or dogs or their summer vacations. These
self-confession essays are the source of most CPS raids.
Similarities with Maoist China are pretty obvious.
> This got turned over to CPS by the school.
> Before we'd heard *anything* of this, CPS had interviewed *BOTH* of my
> kids (the boy in question, and his then 5 year old sister).
Were it me, I'd yank my kids out of the public schools and put them
someplace where CPS can't reach them. (Here in my area, many of my
libertarian-leaning neighbors put their kids in Monte Vista Christian
School or the Silesian Sisters Catholic School. Even the nonbelievers
figure their kids will be better off without CPS narcs around them. And
without being taught "Heather Has Two Mommies" instead of reading and
writing.)
> The case
> worker was a newbie, and was rather obnoxious, he started tossing
> threats around at my wife when she questioned this intrusive process.
> My wife got totally pissed off, and was about to try and sic a lawyer
> on CPS...
She should have.
> We also talked with a well recommended local psychologist
> who calmed her down, and defused the whole situatation, went around
> the case worker to his manager who after a brief consultation dropped
> the whole thing flat. Apparently the case worker was also shuffled
> off front line work. Meanwhile, said kid has been seeing this shrink
> on a fairly regular basis, and is doing much better socially and seems
> generally happier.
I hope your cure is not Ritalin.
CPS and school shrinks (what a concept) love the idea of Ritalin and
other drugs to make the second-rate minds who become teachers feel less
threatened by challenging students.
> SO. Yeah, they are way intrusive. This sort of case should never
> have gotten in the front door. OTOH, when you have situations with
> ongoing physical abuse, *someone* has to intervene. Its a tough
> balance, and I don't know the answer.
I do. It's called the Fourth Amendment. Those seeking entry to a house
must have a warrant signed by a judge. While abuses occur even with
such signatures, it's at least better than having former sociology and
psych major driving around in vans making "interventions" because a kid
likes to play war or listens to Aryan Rock or thinks guns are cool.
--Tim May
John R Pierce
>I hope your cure is not Ritalin.
oh, hell no.
We did take him to a Psychiatrist (as in MD) for a 3 session
evaluation to confirm there were no structural problems, this shrink
thought he seemed a bit melancholic, and actually suggested he *could*
try a anti-depressant regimen (ie. designer prozac equivalents). The
MD said ADS or whatever they call hyperactivity these days was
absolutely NOT a issue here. We thanked this Doc, and we never went
back. The Psychologist / counseler we're all seeing to sort through
these things was quite surprised at the MD's suggestion. Strictly the
'talking' therapy here, in addition to the kids weekly sessions, we
(wife and I) have a session with the doc about once a month to see how
things are going.
The kid has become *much* better socially adjusted this last year, and
rather than being something of a geeky loner, he's actually becoming
something of a leader, as he has all the really good ideas (from a 10
year olds perspective, heh, we are talking creative but harmless
mischief here). He's also become much more aware of the relationship
between his behavior and actions and the consequences, is doing better
in the things he doesn't care for in school (writing is not his
favorite subject), etc. So even tho I was unsure of the validity of
this whole process going into this, it seems to be working out quite
well in our case.
Mike Blackford
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:17:36 -0700, Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>
> >I hope your cure is not Ritalin.
>
> oh, hell no.
>
> We did take him to a Psychiatrist (as in MD) for a 3 session
> evaluation to confirm there were no structural problems, this shrink
> thought he seemed a bit melancholic, and actually suggested he *could*
> try a anti-depressant regimen (ie. designer prozac equivalents). The
> MD said ADS or whatever they call hyperactivity these days was
> absolutely NOT a issue here.
It amazes me how many kids get such attention, and they're merely doing
what any kid does when dosed up with caffeine and sugar (and then come
"down") ... from the average cola sold in schools by the truckload.
--
~~~~ Code Red? See http://members.home.com/mblackford/cr2probe.htm ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zvxr Oynpxsbeq Fvyvpba Inyyrl, Pnyvsbeavn zv...@oynpxsbeq.pbz
John R Pierce
<mblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>It amazes me how many kids get such attention, and they're merely doing
>what any kid does when dosed up with caffeine and sugar (and then come
>"down") ... from the average cola sold in schools by the truckload.
we've got our kids convinced that squirt/7-up/sprite and/or rootbeer
is better than Coke. Then Coca-Cola pushes Barq's into all the soda
fountains at restaurants and its caffienated. #$@$@#$
Ah well, ours really don't drink much soda anyways, its kind of a
treat thing. And, actually, I don't believe our local K-5 school has
sucumbed to the Coke Inc marketing machine, I don't see any signs of
it on campus. They get milk at lunch. Ok, sometimes its chocolate
milk, sigh.
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <9mhe7t$68m$1...@vax.hanford.org>, Neal Tucker
><ntu...@vax.hanford.org> wrote:
>
>> Glen Appleby <gl...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> >ntu...@vax.hanford.org (Neal Tucker) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>You originally claimed that the Constitution fails
>> >>to even cover this issue, and now you confirm that you believe it
>> >>is against the Constitution.
>> >
>> >Not exactly. Yes, it is against the Constitution, but *so*?
>>
>> This is my point. You've gone from "the Constitution is so
>> outdated that it doesn't even cover this stuff" to "yeah, this
>> stuff is against the Constitution, but who cares?"
>>
>> Are you still wondering why I would disagree with your original
>> post where you said the Constitution doesn't cover this stuff?
>
>One thing Glen never cares about is being consistent.
As the thing that you and yer minion, Neal, seem not to care
about is reading what is written instead of listening to the
voices in yer heads.
>He's gone from
>blithering about how CPS doesn't need a warrant because they're
>"protecting the children!!" to saying the Constitution doesn't matter
>to agreeing that warrantless raids are probably against the C., but
>"who cares?"
Since you seem to have a problem with comprehension, I'll try
using smallwe words to help explain.
CPS *doesn't* need a warrant in most cases. Most of the time the
parents just let them in. In the minority of the cases where
some loudmouthed parent (you know, kinda like you ... except like
you *if* you could have a wife and children) decides to "uphold
their Constitutional rights", then CPS simply calls the police
who bring along a warrant. <knock, knock> "We have some paper
this time."
So "protection" by the Constitution is absolute bullshit. Either
CPS is allowed in by the parents or a warrant *will* arrive to
allow them entrance. Either way, they get in.
Where is the protection in this?
Tell us, Tim, has yer "love life" changed hands, recently?
Tim May
<sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:33:15 GMT, Mike Blackford
> <mblac...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >It amazes me how many kids get such attention, and they're merely doing
> >what any kid does when dosed up with caffeine and sugar (and then come
> >"down") ... from the average cola sold in schools by the truckload.
>
> we've got our kids convinced that squirt/7-up/sprite and/or rootbeer
> is better than Coke. Then Coca-Cola pushes Barq's into all the soda
> fountains at restaurants and its caffienated. #$@$@#$
The refined sugar (sucrose) is a much bigger problem than the small
amount of caffeine. I see kids glugging down "Big Gulps" and I know why
diabetes is sharply on the rise and why kids are bouncing off the
walls.
--Tim May
Glen Appleby
Pierce <sp...@is.invalid> wrote:
>We did take him to a Psychiatrist (as in MD) for a 3 session
>evaluation to confirm there were no structural problems,
A single trip for an MRI would do this -- and more definitively
than any dok could pull off.
>this shrink
>thought he seemed a bit melancholic, and actually suggested he *could*
>try a anti-depressant regimen (ie. designer prozac equivalents). The
>MD said ADS or whatever they call hyperactivity these days was
>absolutely NOT a issue here. We thanked this Doc, and we never went
>back. The Psychologist / counseler we're all seeing to sort through
>these things was quite surprised at the MD's suggestion.
To be fair, though, today's medicine contains a lot of capitalism
and marketing. The attitude, too often, is "give them what they
want". There are many parents who *do* ask for something to give
their kids to help manage their behaviors.
*Perhaps* this dok was just (forgive my wording) feeling you out
on this.
I can't know. I wasn't there. Just trying to be fair.
>The kid has become *much* better socially adjusted this last year, and
>rather than being something of a geeky loner, he's actually becoming
>something of a leader, as he has all the really good ideas (from a 10
>year olds perspective, heh, we are talking creative but harmless
>mischief here).
Ah! So the Terrorists In Training (tm) have a ringleader. Kool!
It's good to know who is in charge.
>He's also become much more aware of the relationship
>between his behavior and actions and the consequences, is doing better
>in the things he doesn't care for in school (writing is not his
>favorite subject), etc. So even tho I was unsure of the validity of
>this whole process going into this, it seems to be working out quite
>well in our case.
I'm glad that it is working well for you guys.
Geoff Miller
Tim May <tc...@got.net> writes:
> I see kids glugging down "Big Gulps" and I know why
> diabetes is sharply on the rise and why kids are
> bouncing off the walls.
I've never understood the attraction of Big Gulps. I've
never had a need for 32 ounces of *any* liquid -- at least,
not all at once. If nothing else, the ice would melt and
dilute the soda long before I could finish one of the things.
I don't recall that parents were concerned about sugar
making kids "bounce off the walls" (it's interesting how
ubiquitous that expression has become in this context)
when I was a kid. Surely they knew that sugar made kids
energetic; that simply wasn't seen as a problem like it
is today. If they were down on sugar for kids, it was
because it represented "empty calories" with no nutrit-
ional value.
Look at the positive side of diabetes: If a kid gets it,
his parents can use the experience as an educational
opportunity by showing him how to make rock candy from
his own urine.
Geoff
--
"Females who decide to 'liberate' a men's restroom, while men
are forbidden to 'liberate' women's restrooms, deserve to be
raped, mutilated, and left to rot." -- Tim May
Glen Appleby
<tc...@got.net> wrote:
>Here are some of the things which have been used to "justify an
>intervention":
>
>-- a kid drawing pictures of soldiers killing other soldiers (something
>nearly all of the boys, except the Future Fairies of America, did in
>the 50s and 60s)
>
>-- a kid who in the D.A.R.E. interrogation/self-discovery sessions
>makes his "confession" about alcohol in the home, R-rated movies on the
>cable system, or any guns in the house
>
>-- any comment about unhappiness or anger in the household
Aw, yer just saying this, right?
Actually, all that what you say has been done (and much more!).
However, these are the rare cases (which is why you heard about
them. They are so rare that they made the press).
Almost all CPS interventions occur because of a phone call from a
family member, a neighbor or a friend.
>CPS is/are like traffic cops--they have their quotas to fill.
Stop sprouting ignorance. This is not true ... except as you
might chose to distort the truth to make it look like this.
CPS makes money based on the number of investigations and the
number of removals. The workers are *encouraged* to follow up
each and every complaint, in order to get mo' money (but you
understand that and find it to be a Good Thing (tm), right?).
No, they have *no* quotas, though.
>They are
>not kept employed by the school district if they never file a case, so
>they make sure to file their quota of cases every year.
More ignorance, Tim. CPS workers are employed by the *county*
and not be the skool district.
>Kids are increasingly being asked to write "self-disclosing essays,"
>compared to what they used to be told to do: write essays about
>Christopher Columbus or dogs or their summer vacations. These
>self-confession essays are the source of most CPS raids.
Ob Grinch: WrOng-o!
Minimal impact. Rarely are these used to call CPS.
When they are used, it is most often because (1) skool officials
(and others) are mandated by law to call CPS if there is *any*
evidence of abuse and (2) so few people understand "abuse" that
the call on what does or doesn't constitute "abuse" is very
subjective and those teachers are *probibly* simplt projecting
their own past problems on all that they see around them.
>> This got turned over to CPS by the school.
>> Before we'd heard *anything* of this, CPS had interviewed *BOTH* of my
>> kids (the boy in question, and his then 5 year old sister).
>
>Were it me,
Fortunately for any possible offspring of your's, it wasn't and
won't be.
>I'd yank my kids out of the public schools and put them
>someplace where CPS can't reach them. (Here in my area, many of my
>libertarian-leaning neighbors put their kids in Monte Vista Christian
>School or the Silesian Sisters Catholic School. Even the nonbelievers
>figure their kids will be better off without CPS narcs around them. And
>without being taught "Heather Has Two Mommies" instead of reading and
>writing.)
I kinda smile everytime I see you going on about how different
things are today from what you think they should be in
RedneckLand. Makes me giggle.
>> SO. Yeah, they are way intrusive. This sort of case should never
>> have gotten in the front door. OTOH, when you have situations with
>> ongoing physical abuse, *someone* has to intervene. Its a tough
>> balance, and I don't know the answer.
>
>I do. It's called the Fourth Amendment. Those seeking entry to a house
>must have a warrant signed by a judge.
Virtually any US judge will sign virtually any warrant on the
flimsiest of evidence, or even simply an annonomous phone call.
So much for the "power" of yer impotent Fourth Ammendment.