Yeah, I bet you didn’t see that coming. At least, not from a lawyer.

But it’s true.

I don’t know which came first, lawyer jokes, or, simply, lawyers who are, in fact, jokes. But the truth of the matter is that much of what’s wrong with law in the United States today is our fault.

Oh, I know. I know. We’ve got practices to run, families to feed, and the crush of clients-without-money is just too much.

So when the Sheriff’s Department says, “You need to fill out this form before you can be admitted to the jail to see your client,” who are we to argue? When the lowest-possible-level clerk at the window says, “It will cost $100 to put your client’s criminal case on calendar,” why should we ask “why?”

We’re busy. So we just do it.

“Legal basis?” What the fuck are you talking about? We don’t need no steenkin’ legal basis!

What? What? Wh-wh-wha-what?! “What brought this on, Rick?!,” you wonder.

Well, I just got back from the Hanford, California, jail a little while ago. (Yeah, I know. It’s late. Some questions, I don’t ask, apparently.) Before that, I spent part of my day in Madera, California, approximately an hour-or-so to the north, trying to put a case on calendar.

In Madera, my client was arrested for the bullshit charge commonly-known amongst those who have been practicing criminal law longer than a month as “contempt of cop.” In the process, he was blessed with one hell of a nice shiner. Well, okay: it’s not really a shiner, but the entire right-side of his face was a lovely shade of purple.

I suggested to the slightly-curmudgeonly, if grandfatherly, near-70-year-old man, a photographer by trade, “No doubt you’ll say, ‘You think that’s bad, you should see the other guy!’”

He replied, “I wouldn’t know. I only saw the bottom of his boot.”

You see, my client had allegedly been stopped for a traffic violation. Being from a generation past when it was normal to get out of the car to greet the officer, he was taken aback when he was brusquely ordered back inside “your vehicle.” (Police officers despise referring to cars as “cars”; they are “vehicles.” This works particularly well with the Hispanic population which comprises the near-majority in California. But as most cops in central California are white — and not a few are white supremacists — they could give a shit.)

You see, my client had difficult complying with the order, because he had inadvertently allowed the door to close behind him. Not being the most wealthy of men, the door release was busted and he therefore normally had to enter the car from the passenger side. As the officer refused to listen to his explanation, merely repeating his order, my client attempted to comply by heading for the passenger side.

Big mistake.

The officer was on him like — well, I’d say like a fly on shit, but in this case, it was the officer who acted like a piece of shit.

He grabbed granddad, spun him in the classic “law enforcement pirouette,” and cuffed his hands behind his back before he could say, “Wh-wha-what?!” and — these are my client’s words — “slowly, almost gently, began to lower” him to the ground, holding onto the cuffed hands.

Imagine that.

No, really. Imagine that. You’re an old 70ish man, being “gently” lowered to the ground — for the first time in your life — slowly, as your hands are stretched out behind you, held by the young uniformed goon who has attacked you for no explicable reason.

Oh, but it’s not over.

For an equally inexplicable reason, another man young goon suddenly comes running out of the darkness. (I may have neglected to mention the stop occurred at night, which adds only slightly to the terror of the incident….right.)

The man young goon yells, “I’m an off-duty CHP [California Highway Patrol] officer!”

And that’s when the boot comes down.

Because apparently the slowness — “gentleness” (?!), remember, is actually how my client described it — with which the original officer young goon was lowering him to the ground was misinterpreted by the off-duty officer young goon as “resistance.”

My client’s booking photo is beautiful. Too bad I don’t do civil law. I hope he’s able to find a good attorney for the lawsuit I’ve suggested he consider filing.

But I digress.

Because I’m disgusted.

So I came to meet this client because he received a letter in the mail telling him that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. Because he failed to appear to answer for the charge of violating California’s “contempt of cop” laws. I’m hard-pressed to find the contempt of cop in the above, where my client refers to his being “gently” lowered” to the ground by his cuffed hands, but for whatever reason, my client was charged with our standard “resisting arrest.”

Nobody knows what he was being arrested for, mind you, but whatever it was, he was “resisting” it when the boot came down. Perhaps because he enjoyed the gentleness of the lowering too much.

Actually, we criminal defense lawyers know what really happened: the boot, which shouldn’t have, came down — an off-duty buttinski boot — and now the client has to pay for it.

So he was arrested, and released.

The jail paperwork shows no pending court date: the section wherein it should have been written is inexplicably blank.

Probably my client’s fault. Like the fact that he was lowered to the ground too-slowly by Cop A, forcing off-duty Cop B to put the pedal to the…well, fortunately, no plates were needed, so it’s not metal. Not yet. But the man still has a decade or two left to defy them by not falling fast enough, so let’s withhold judgment on that one.

Being as he had no court date, he naturally didn’t show up for court, compounding his current misdemeanor for resisting arrest. The perfectly legal arrest for the crime of…uh…um…oh, yeah, resisting arrest.

Wait. Where’s the beef?

I don’t know. What I do know is they won’t put him on calendar, because his bail was forfeited when he failed to appear for the court date which was never set. And according to the judge’s order, if you wish to get put back on calendar after failing to appear and having your bail forfeited — even if it’s because you never had a court date — you have to pay an extra $100. And, of course, until you appear — even if this $100 extortion fee has been paid — your warrant is still outstanding.

There’s just one problem: no one can produce a copy of the alleged order of the alleged judge (who now sits on the District Court of Appeal, so you know where complaining about this is going to get you).

There is no such order.

But, you know, the county is kinda hard up for money, so they gotta get it where they can. And they can get it by telling you that you will be arrested if you don’t show up for the court date that they don’t tell you about when they don’t provide you with the notice about the date which isn’t really set — or is it? — we just don’t know what to tell you except that you need to cough up more money.

And then I went to Hanford.

A couple of years ago, Hanford built a new jail. And according to the jailers in Hanford, they “forgot” — I swear they actually used that word — to build rooms for attorney-client interviews. At the time, I had a client who was charged with first-degree murder and was facing the death penalty. (It did not end that way. And although my client considered what happened a “win,” neither me — nor, sadly, his family — agreed. Although he ended up unstiff, as to my bill which was only partially paid-up-front, I was stiffed.)

First-degree murder, particularly a planned-for-weeks-gang-murder like this one is quite a serious crime — more so even than resisting arrest for…um…well, whatever.  And — even in California where we spend millions of dollars not to carry it out (thank god; I’ve never wanted to be a party to murder, states-sponsored or otherwise) — it carries quite a serious penalty.

Because even if it turns out not to be an actual we’re-going-to-kill-you-possibly-painfully death sentence, it’s still a you’ll-spend-the-rest-of-your-life-in-prison-thinking-we-might-kill-you sentence.

And Hanford had this really nice clean new jail.

With no attorney-client interview rooms.

Because they “forgot.”

So, first, I was told that there was no way to allow an attorney-client-privileged contact meeting with my client.

I could, however, use the fancy new videoconferencing system — nothing like having a little videotaped set of admissions, eh? — which the general public sitting right next to me was permitted to use to communicate with their loved one, sitting right next to my client.

I refused.

Perhaps you can understand my position.

The Kings County Sheriff’s Department did not.

Therefore, I was forced to file motions (yes, I really did; several, before they were ultimately granted — though my favorite was the “Motion for Fair Trial” which was (I kid you not) denied — you haven’t lived until you’ve heard a judge pronounce in open court “The defendant’s motion for fair trial is denied”) to obtain access to my client in as-close-as-we’re-gonna-get-to-attorney-client-privileged-meetings-as-possible as I was going to get.

But they wanted me to sign a release.

If, in any way, whether caused by my client, or by “slipping on a puddle” (i.e., I pissed off the deputy on duty), or some other unknown cause, I was to be injured, neither me, nor my “assigneds,” nor “heirs” (nothing ominous there, really), were to be rewarded one single penny.

I refused to sign.

That did not go over well.

The officer on duty the Night of the Final Resolution actually refused — seriously, he said, “that means nothing to me” — to honor a court order granting me access to my client.

The next day, the judge agreed with me, in front of the Sheriff’s attorney, that it might be necessary to order my client to be brought to McDonald’s to meet with me to ensure at least the possibility of an attorney-client-privileged visit.

I kid you not.

The bottom line is that things were ironed out and I did not sign their fucking form and my client received representation on a death penalty case which ultimately resulted in an agreement whereby my client will be younger than I am now when he is finally released.

Call that what you want: I call that a win.

But today I went back to Hanford.

A lot has changed in the last couple of years. The Kings County Jail, Hanford Edition, has two new rooms for attorney-client interviews. Complete with large glass partitions and their own phones with no family members sitting next to the attorneys and no other accused-persons-equally-deprived-of-rights seated alongside the attorneys’ clients.

They still want you to sign the form, though.

And I didn’t.

Which caused a real problem.

For a minute.

But, just as I and the judge two years ago explained, that’s what California Penal Code section 825, subsection (b), appears to be made for.

Ultimately, I was allowed a contact visit with my (handcuffed) potential client. But the problem here — just as the problem of my client in Madera County being required to pay a “fee” that has apparently never been legally authorized by any judge — would have been nipped in the bud long ago if any criminal defense attorney had simply asked, “Why?” and refused to accept “Because” as an adequate response on day one of the “policy” being implemented. And if that didn’t work, then the second criminal defense attorney to encounter the policy should have joined in.

Unfortunately, most of the attorneys never got to “because,” since they never asked “Why?”

What. The. Fuck?!?!?!

If you ask me, the path to our next Revolution is, first, we kill all the lawyers.

Unless, of course, when you’re about to pull the trigger, one of them asks, “Why?”

Related posts:

• Time to Fight Back?
• Fresno Superior Court Calls Sheriff Liar
• A Diet of Rehabilitation

Where did he find jeans with pockets in the first place?!

If we keep on the path we’ve been on, this is the world of the future.  Metal detectors at the entrances to retail outlets and other public venues.  And because people can easily hide things in pockets, clothing manufacturers bend to “the will of the People” and stop making pockets.  Everyone — men, women, children — will carry their identification cards badges on the outside of their clothing and any personal items they insist on carrying will go into easily-x-rayed “purses” to speed the process of going through “detection lines” as they move around town.

Friday night, shots were fired outside a Bullard High School basketball game by a still-unknown someone.  By today the article with the large headline reading “Metal detectors at FUSD gyms?” noted that:

Gunshots fired outside a crowded gymnasium have prompted the Fresno Unified School District to consider using metal detectors at high school basketball games.  (Pablo Lopez and George Hostetter, “Metal detectors at FUSD gyms?” (January 25, 2009) p. B1, col. 2, above the fold, at the time of this writing, available online here.)

Now, the school district is arguably a part of the government.  And the government is arguably bound by the United States Constitution.  And the United States Constitution arguably protects citizens against warrantless searches via the Fourth Amendment.  So, arguably, the use of metal detectors outside a school gymnasium would be illegal.

Only since the United States does not honor the Constitution in spirit, but only in word — and then usually only in Orwellian attempts to justify wars to protect our freedom — it’s not.  That is, it’s not illegal; it’s probably not even arguable except for idiots like me who still prefer pockets to purses.

But you don’t have to go there if you dislike being a submitizen, I was told when I objected to metal detectors out front of the courthouse.  True that: I could change careers.  Only what if I ever get summoned for jury duty?  Or, worse yet, some blowhard-in-blue thinks I dissed him and charges me with a violation of Penal Code section 148 (dissing a police officer — you didn’t know that was illegal, did you?).  And you don’t have to go to a ballgame at Bullard High School.  Going places isn’t a right; it’s a privilege.

Uh, yeah.  Tell that to our Founders.  At least in their day, the tyrannical fascists against whom they fought were using written general warrants authorizing indiscriminate searches!  (That’s why they wrote the Fourth Amendment after they decided that generalized unwarranted searches were worth shooting people over and then did shoot enough of them to be able to write their own Constitution.)

Moreover, as the idea of using metal detectors in more and more places spreads, there will be more and more places one doesn’t “have” to go.  Eventually, some malignant wit will be telling me I don’t have to go to the grocery!

And what is this for?  Why this wholesale acceptance on the part of submitizens with respect to metal detectors and warrantless searches?  Well, didn’t you read the Fresno Bee?  Someone fired shots outside the gymnasium!

Okay.  What am I missing here?  The shots were fired where?  Outside the gymnasium.  Outside.

Someone want to explain to me how metal detectors are going to help in this situation?

“Yes,” I hear former-statutory-rapist-cum-police-chief Jerry Dyer saying, “but they could have fired the shots inside the gymnasium!”  We need metal detectors at the door now because the fact that someone fired shots outside the gymnasium last Friday means someone could fire shots inside the gymnasium some day in the future.

If this is the line of reasoning folks, then the grocery store scenario I started off with here is not all that absurd; it’s closer than you think.  And guess what?  The grocery store isn’t even arguably a branch of government.  So the United States Constitution does not prevent the grocery store from requiring you to submit to a search before being allowed to enter.

In the 1700s, there were occasional shootings in bars and other public gathering places.  Yet, for some reason, our Founders did not see fit to install security checkpoints at the entrances.  Hell, for some inexplicable reason, they allowed people to walk down the street with guns strapped to their hips, or even concealed under their jackets.  In broad daylight, no less!

Maybe they mistakenly thought the Fourth Amendment actually meant something.

Once — holy Moses! — somehow, someone even managed to get close enough, in a theater, to draw a bead on the back of a President’s head and blow a hole in him!  (And still the Fourth Amendment remained in place.)  Do you seriously believe the world is a more dangerous place today than it was in the 1700s?

Actually, as it turns out, the world is a more dangerous place today.  But it’s only indirectly because of submitizens.  The direct danger to our world today is the government’s increasing refusal to recognize the limitations placed on it by we, the People, in the United States Constitution.  Our submitting to the government flouting the law only encourages a lawless government.

This is the main danger, first, because the government is increasingly one of men and not of law; the government itself is increasingly the enemy of the People, beneficial only to those actually wielding governmental power.  Secondarily, it is true because the disrespect for law demonstrated by the government sets the stage for a disrespect for law among others.  When enough people no longer respect the law, we dissolve into de facto anarchy.

In that kind of world, we actually have to hope grocery stores do install metal detectors, hire armed guards and require us to empty our pockets before entering.  In a lawless society, there has to be some place we can find a little safety.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go buy a purse.

Comments

• January 25, 2009, JP Sweeney writes: There is no one that would go to the trouble of reading this without agreeing.
• January 25, 2009, RickH writes: Without agreeing to what? That we need metal detectors outside the gym? That the way we're going, we're going to have metal detectors outside of grocery stores? That the world is more dangerous today than in the 1700s? That the government is the danger? There were a lot of questions in this post. I myself strongly doubt everyone would agree with all my points. In fact, I wrote it because I already find myself disagreeing with FUSD concerning the need for metal detectors, particularly based on this incident.
• February 27, 2009, Thomas Jefferson Bradford writes: just wanted to say i admire your work.....i was raised in Fresno and was a bouncer at a biker bar that Jerry Dyer used to frequent when he was a young officer. Boy i could tell you alot of information, if your ever interested i would love to buy you lunch and share some things about the P.D. that you may , or may not know. peace...and may your Gods Bless you... p.s. im in Fresno right now.
• May 12, 2009, Eric Essman writes: Is the world more dangerous now than in the 1700's? Is that the question you posed? Let's see, we have fully automatic weapons in more hands than at any time in history, weapons that did not exist in 1700. We have the threat of dirty bombs and nuclear bombs. Did those threats exist in the 1700's? The question kind of answers itself.

Related posts:

• Scaretistics
• The Very Definition of a Police State
• Submitizens II

The funk started not so much because of the rules implemented by the court — the day California courts honor the United States Constitution will be a surprising day indeed! — but rather because of the reaction of other defense attorneys to my opinions regarding the newly-implemented rules.

Fear Does Not Trump Inalienable Rights

I alluded to an “attorney” standing nearby on the first day I encountered the new policy of searching, without probable cause and in violation of the United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, all attorneys entering the courthouse.  This criminal defense attorney derided me to the bailiff for my comments about the unconstitutionality of the act.  And, soon, I would learn he is not the only criminal defense attorney who finds no problem with searches lacking in probable cause “because of the safety factor.”

A public defender, for whom I’ve always had the utmost respect, upon hearing that I was researching how to sue the presiding judge for this violation of my civil rights, indicated that he was in agreement with the policy.  The reason?  One of his clients, he said, once tried to smuggle in a weapon which he was allegedly going to use against the attorney.

Now I understand someone not wanting to be attacked and injured (or worse) by one of his clients in a courtroom.  Frankly, I would not like to be attacked by a client, either.  (Just one of many reasons I listen to, explain things and fight hard for my clients.  But, then, as another criminal defense attorney explained to me, I’m a freak.) Heck, for some reason, I don’t want to be attacked by anyone, either inside or outside of a courtroom.  Maybe it’s a Freudian thing, or perhaps I was dropped on my head at birth by some slippery-handed obstetrician.

But here’s the thing:  My fear of being attacked by some idiot with a weapon does not justify the abrogation of everyone else’s constitutional rights. At least not “inalienable” rights such as those protected by the Fourth Amendment. In fact, the concern our Founders had for the possibility that someone might think some governmental function — like keeping us safe — would trump inalienable rights is exactly why the Fourth Amendment was enacted.

Avoiding the Violation by Avoiding the Court Does Not Work

And it’s not as simple as one guard suggested when he said, “So don’t come in.”  Setting aside the fact that I’m a criminal defense attorney who makes his living by trying to convince the courts that our laws and legal system should be more than a pretense, there are times when I’ve been summoned to the courthouse for jury duty.  You cannot refuse jury duty on the grounds that you do not wish to leave your constitutional rights at the front door.

Similarly, for people who have been ordered to appear in court, refusing to enter on the grounds that unconvicted citizens of the United States are entitled to Fourth Amendment protections can and will result in an arrest warrant being issued.  Even mere witnesses summoned to testify will find themselves subjected to a body attachment and jail time for the willful failure to abandon their inalienable rights and obey the summons.

The Times, They Aren’t A-Changin’

This morning, one of the court’s enforcers commented that “these are different times.”

In one sense, that’s true.  Our Founders would never have permitted such generalized searches without particularized grounds for believing the person to be searched had committed or was about to commit a crime.  They well understood the tendency of the government to abuse its power — a limited power given to it by individuals such as myself — and to begin to treat citizens as chattel, as Submitizens.  In fact, under the same conditions, our Founders came up with a plan: they started shooting the representatives of the government which violated their rights to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The fact that we willingly submit to the government which was created for the limited purpose of ensuring our freedom from the very acts of government which the British forced on early Americans and which are now being forced upon us is proof indeed that times are different.

This, however, is not what the enforcer — who, as another “defense attorney” pointed out, was “only following orders” (where have I heard that before?) — meant by saying “these are different times.”  He mistakenly believed that we live in more dangerous times.

In fact, there were significant threats faced by the early settlers which we do not face.  The governments — yes, the plural would be appropriate — of America were under constant threat of being overthrown.  Americans constantly were concerned with the possibility of having other countries — including most notably Great Britain — impose their will upon our as-yet-unborn nation.  Prior to the establishment of the United States, spies such as Benedict Arnold and Major John André plotted against us.

On a less politically-driven basis, settlers in America had to deal with Indians, the French, press gangs (which kidnapped Americans from coastal cities and forced them to work aboard foreign ships), bands of thieves threatening travelers, stagecoach hold-ups, bank robberies and more.

Early Americans Feared Unrestricted Government More Than Other Threats

In spite of these things and the ease with which unrestricted powers of search and seize would have increased the safety of Submitizens, the American people almost refused to approve the formation of the United States by refusing to approve the United States Constitution because it did not acknowledge that the government was restricted in how far it could go towards, among other things, searching its citizens.  (Back then, we were not yet Submitizens.)

It is…clear that they viewed the federal group as the greatest potential threat to their rights and freedoms, which is precisely why the Bill of Rights contains so many express restrictions on the power of government officials.  (Jacob G. Hornberger, Liberty, Power and the Constitution (September 4, 2006) Freedom Daily/The Future of Freedom Foundation.)

Early Americans knew that,

A democratic government that respects no limits on its power is a ticking time bomb, waiting to destroy the rights it was created to protect. (James Bovard)

Give Them an Inch & They’ll Take Your Freedom

We would do well to remember what our Founders knew when they — in the midst of a world full of people and nations which sought their destruction as a free nation and plotted their complete subjugation — enshrined our pre-existing rights to be free from such searches as those daily forced upon Submitizens today.

Our personal freedoms are not what threatens us the most.  What threatens us the most is our failure to recognize just how completely our own government works to undo our constitutional protections.  Bill Clinton exemplified this threat in a 1994 MTV interview:

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly….What’s happened in America today is, too many people live in areas where there’s no family structure, no community structure, and no work structure. And so there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.  (James Bovard, “Democracy versus Liberty” (February 7, 2007) (emphasis added).)

But like our Founders — and unlike the attorneys mentioned earlier in this article who, deserving neither, willingly trade constitutional freedoms for a little security — I’m tired of the government unilaterally abolishing my inalienable rights for the sake of making some of us feel safe.

Together We Stand, Divided We Fall

At any rate, I began this article by saying that Nicole Black’s “Fear and liberty must co-exist” might help snap me out of the funk I’ve been in since the day I wrote Submitizens. And it has; not just because Nicole said what I feel better (and with far fewer words) than I just did, but because she reminded me that I’m not alone. There are real defense attorneys out there who haven’t become Submitizens.

My hope — and my goal — is that we can educate the rest of you so that you will stand with us and follow the example of our Founders with respect to our freedoms, without the need to resort to their method for achieving it.

Requiem to a Constitution

I linked a few articles in the post above, but three sites in particular I want to recommend to you for a serious read, in no particular order:

• Anthony Colleluori’s, “The Land of the Sheep and the Home of the Frightened”
• Mark Bennett’s, “Freedom vs. Safety”
• Andrea Bullock’s, “Would You Trade Liberty for Security?”

Don’t just sit there! Use the comment form below to join the conversation! Let us know you care! Let me know I’m not alone!

Comments

• December 24, 2008, Tony "That Lawyer Dude" Colleluori writes: Rick, great post. I hope you have grounds to attack this. I absolutely will not allow someone to touch me as I enter the courtroom as a working attorney. I have to be there. I do not mind screening of my bag, but I will not open it. I just leave and tell the court that I would not submit to a search of my person. I have yet to be denied after the clerk or ct. Room Dep calls down. I hadn't thought about a law suit but it seems like a good idea. In NY we have an atty ID which allows us to submit to a Police background ck and then we free pass into any state ct house. Feds still require magnometer and scans but I always pass. I wonder what a law suit might do. They have those same fail-safes at SCOTUS.
• December 24, 2008, RickH writes: Tony, I should maybe clarify something. They've never TOUCHED us (although I think one deputy was hoping to get an excuse to cuff me). But the point is, making someone empty their pockets and letting the deputy pick through things to make sure everything's "ok," to get into a courtroom, THAT'S a search. The thing I don't get is just that: how come (of all people) defense attorneys don't understand that when you're required to empty your pockets and let someone poke through the things you dump into a bowl, that's a search? Do any of us really think there's a difference between someone sticking their hands in my pockets and someone making me empty my pockets into a bowl they then paw through to verify that I'm not committing a crime? After all the rest of the verbiage in the Fourth Amendment, it doesn't say, "unless there is a possibility that in some alternate universe they actually might be committing, or about to commit, a crime" at the end.
• December 24, 2008, Tony "That Lawyer Dude" Colleluori writes: I agree however I understood that you only had to take out metal. That made some sense to me. I have never been asked to empty my pockets just to submit metal. Since I don't like that either I just stick keys and pens in my bag. I am equally concerned with what you write, but I am also aware that powers that wish to destroy us, will target our buildings of government. Where would you draw the line?
• December 24, 2008, Mike Hamilton writes: I think that one of the principles of the 4th amendment is a matter of trust, as in "trust no one". What I mean by this is that any kind of search and seizure without and even with probable cause creates a matter of concern in terms of trust. At some point, someone has to be trusted at a level that should not be given to anyone. As an example: A low profile but serious case is being held at a courthouse with the aforementioned policy. A particular security guard, without anyone's knowledge, has an interest in further incriminating the defendant. The security guard plants a weapon on the defendant as they enter the courthouse further creating an even worse situation for the defendant. Part of the protection of the 4th amendment is at least in principal to provide some kind of protection from situations like that. At a deeper level however it is still a matter of trust. Kind of like with Certificate Authorities in the IT world. At some point in the chain of certificate trusts, someone has to be considered completely trustworthy. The only problem with that is that with that kind of power comes a certain amount of corruptibility. Even if the party in question (the one we are supposed to trust 100%) is genuinely trustworthy, that party also becomes a target for those who would wish to abuse the trust earned by that party. And to further that example, as we get more and more companies that want to be CAs, how do we know that all of them are trustworthy? In many ways, our founders were paranoid about any kind of "chain of trust" and were more concerned with "checks and balances". Someone has to oversee power and authority. Of course then that creates another level of trust and thus another chain of trust. My bottom line is that there is confusion between "understandable" with "allowable". While it may be understandable "given these times", that does not mean it is allowable under the law of the land or the principle and spirit of the law. Trust is not something that can be granted or passed along.
• December 24, 2008, They Shoot Puppies, Don't They? | Probable Cause writes: [...] think we can put the blame solely on some psycho-distortion of the officers themselves.  As I alluded to on my more regionalized legal blog, our societal ideas about personal freedom and constitutional [...]
• January 6, 2009, A Nation of Suspects | Probable Cause writes: [...] More than once recently, I’ve written about Submitizens. Several criminal defense attorneys in Fresno, California, where my office is located, simply shrug.  Among other things, they can’t understand why this bothers me so much. [...]

Related posts:

• Submitizens
• Shooting Holes in the U.S. Constitution
• An Officer of the Court