The Constitution Wins!!!!!!

[What the Heck]

No, that's not at all what the jugde ruled. You haven't read her ruling, have you?

If you want to know what the judge did rule, see http://www.kgw.com/news/pdf/show_case_doc.pdf

Sorry, but that is exactly what the judge ruled. This case has nothing to do with the Patriot Act and everything to do with the Act being misused. People are acting like no one in law enforcement has ever gone over the line of what they were supposed to do for any reason whatsoever. The points are:

1. There was probable cause for a search warrant
2. A search warrant was issued.

These are facts of the case. Also facts of the case is that the probable cause was incorrect, a situation that was, at best, a mistake, and at worse criminal. That should be addressed, not the Patriot Act. This isn't a case of a law being out of hand, but investigators. That has happened many, many times before 9/11, and will happen many more times as we go through life. But these facts don't fit with what the judge wanted to accomplish, so the heck with them.

 

[profdsny]

Not in this case, the Constitution loses.

The case cited had probable cause to issue the warrant, however there was a mistake made. The Constitution does not guarantee against people making mistakes. Part of a fingerprint was misread? And that invalidates probable cause?

This is a judge rewriting the Constitution.

This was not the issue at all. This had to do with this fellow, but a misread print really had nothing to do with the ruling.

And this is 2. All we are missing now is Miss Early Light.

 

[salmoneous]

Sorry, but that is exactly what the judge ruled. This case has nothing to do with the Patriot Act and everything to do with the Act being misused.

Again, you haven't read the judge's ruling, have you?

None of the specifics of the case were reviewed by the judge's ruling. Those had previously been settled by mutual agreement of the government and Mayfield. The issue was, "Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment that 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823, as amended
by the Patriot Act, violate the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution."

 

[What the Heck]

This was not the issue at all. This had to do with this fellow, but a misread print really had nothing to do with the ruling.

And this is 2. All we are missing now is Miss Early Light.

Wow, I'm stunned by your facts to refute it. Because you said it, it must be the facts, notwithstanding what was in the complaint or the newspaper article. And the fact that you use it as a way of putting me down, I have seen the error of my ways.

Of course, if you had listed a fact or two, then I would really be ashamed of my existance, but your word is really all I need. After all, the far left rarely have use for facts at all.

 

[What the Heck]

Again, you haven't read the judge's ruling, have you?

None of the specifics of the case were reviewed by the judge's ruling. Those had previously been settled by mutual agreement of the government and Mayfield. The issue was, "Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment that 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823, as amended
by the Patriot Act, violate the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution."

I read the case. I still need an explanation that how law enforcement doing something wrong makes this a case for the Patriot Act. Unless the judge creates her own law. Tell me, is he now going to ask that jails be outlawed because he was in one? The facts of the case have nothing to do with the Patriot Act, except in that the Patriot Act was misused by FBI agents. Using the logic of her statement, EVERY law ever passed would be held unconstitutional, from speeding tickets to murder.

eceltics made a point that the Patriot Act may have been passed too soon, in the fervor of 9/11, so it came out as sloppy law. Taking it apart, with rulings like this, is the equivalent. If it is a bad law, the judges who rule against it shouldn't have to pull ideas out of the air to tie it together.

 

[What the Heck]

Again, you haven't read the judge's ruling, have you?

None of the specifics of the case were reviewed by the judge's ruling. Those had previously been settled by mutual agreement of the government and Mayfield. The issue was, "Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment that 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823, as amended
by the Patriot Act, violate the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution."

And, again, the facts of this case do not support her rulling. You are correct in that was her ruling, but the case wasn't about that. The facts of the case still are:

1. There was probable cause used to get a warrant.
2. A search warrant was issued on that probable cause.
3. The probable cause was not correct.

How do any of those facts warrant a case against the Patriot Act? This is what the judge has done, ruled on the Patriot Act due to those facts listed above. What she has in effect done is to REMOVE the checks and balances in the Constitution. She has overstepped her boundaries, her ruling was not responsive to the case.

 

[Tyler's Dad]

I read the case. I still need an explanation that how law enforcement doing something wrong makes this a case for the Patriot Act. Unless the judge creates her own law. Tell me, is he now going to ask that jails be outlawed because he was in one? The facts of the case have nothing to do with the Patriot Act, except in that the Patriot Act was misused by FBI agents. Using the logic of her statement, EVERY law ever passed would be held unconstitutional, from speeding tickets to murder.

eceltics made a point that the Patriot Act may have been passed too soon, in the fervor of 9/11, so it came out as sloppy law. Taking it apart, with rulings like this, is the equivalent. If it is a bad law, the judges who rule against it shouldn't have to pull ideas out of the air to tie it together.

Her ruling has everything to do witht he Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is what these agents used to make their case. Without the Patriot Act, they definately would have needed more than a partial match to a partial finger print, thousands of miles from here. They tapped his phones and monitored other communications, before they were given any warrants. That would not have happened before the Patriot Act.

 

[salmoneous]

I read the case.

Good (assuming by "the case" you mean the judges ruling that you are commending on.)

I still need an explanation that how law enforcement doing something wrong makes this a case for the Patriot Act.

It doesn't. Where in the ruling does it say it does?

Tell me, is he now going to ask that jails be outlawed because he was in one?

No.

The facts of the case have nothing to do with the Patriot Act, except in that the Patriot Act was misused by FBI agents.

Exactly. The judge ruled on the constitutionality of one piece of the Patriot act in general, not on how it applied in this case.

Using the logic of her statement, EVERY law ever passed would be held unconstitutional, from speeding tickets to murder.

Not at all. The judge rules a specific provision of the Patriot Act to be illegal because it violated the 4th Amendment. Using the logic of her statement, those laws that violate the 4th Amendment are unconstitutional. Laws about speeding tickets and murder don't violate the 4th Amendment and thus you can't use the logic of her statement to say they are unconstitutional.

If it is a bad law, the judges who rule against it shouldn't have to pull ideas out of the air to tie it together.

She didn't pull ideas out of the air to tie it together. Sources for all her ideas are document in the ruling. You saw those when you read it, right?

 

[salmoneous]

ruled on the Patriot Act due to those facts listed above.

No, she didn't. As you read her ruling you saw that she didn't base her decision on the constitutionality of the partiot act based on the specific facts of this one case.

 

[salmoneous]

Without the Patriot Act, they definately would have needed more than a partial match to a partial finger print, thousands of miles from here. They tapped his phones and monitored other communications, before they were given any warrants. That would not have happened before the Patriot Act.

Whether your statements are true or not, they played no role in the judges ruling. She did not rule on whether or not there was probable cause in this case. That Teh specifics of the case were settled by prior agreement of the parties. She ruled on whether or not the requirements of the Patriot Act satisfied the 4th Amendment.

 

[What the Heck]

She didn't pull ideas out of the air to tie it together. Sources for all her ideas are document in the ruling. You saw those when you read it, right?

I saw the sources in her rulings, I just don't see how they apply to the case.

In the case, it is listed time and time again how the "facts" used by the FBI in this case were easily refutable, where the Spanish were saying "this is not the guy", etc, etc. The case, per the judge, claims that "the FBI and DOJ "concoted false and misleading affidavits" in order to justify even more intrusive searches and ultimately to justify Mayfield's arrest".

Did you also read the part about the expert hired by Mr. Mayfeild? Not hired by the FBI or DOJ but Mr. Mayfield? The one that testified that he had "compared the latent prints that were submitted on Brandon Mayfeild, and (he) concluded that the latent print is the left index finger of Mr. Mayfield."

She does not identify how either of these apply to the Patriot Act, yet she lists them in her brief. She may as well have used the case to prove that the world is flat, because it has just as much validity to the case as the Patriot Act does.

This decision reeks of politics. Rail against the Patriot Act as much as you want, but it was at least brought into law by a full Congress and President, not by one judge.

 

[What the Heck]

Whether your statements are true or not, they played no role in the judges ruling. She did not rule on whether or not there was probable cause in this case. That Teh specifics of the case were settled by prior agreement of the parties. She ruled on whether or not the requirements of the Patriot Act satisfied the 4th Amendment.

But, in order for her ruling to be valid, doesn't the case have to have standing? Since when is a judge allowed to rule on a case without standing? How does that not go counter to the checks and balances of the Constitution? This is my point. This case is not about what she ruled on, this case does not have standing with the Patriot Act.

 

[salmoneous]

In the case, it is listed time and time again how the "facts" used by the FBI in this case were easily refutable, where the Spanish were saying "this is not the guy", etc, etc. The case, per the judge, claims that "the FBI and DOJ "concoted false and misleading affidavits" in order to justify even more intrusive searches and ultimately to justify Mayfield's arrest".

These facts are listed in the background section. They aren't used in the rationale for her ruling.

Did you also read the part about the expert hired by Mr. Mayfeild? Not hired by the FBI or DOJ but Mr. Mayfield? The one that testified that he had "compared the latent prints that were submitted on Brandon Mayfeild, and (he) concluded that the latent print is the left index finger of Mr. Mayfield."

Again, that is included in the background section, but is not used in the rationale for her ruling.

She does not identify how either of these apply to the Patriot Act,

Because she doesn't use them in her ruling.

yet she lists them in her brief.

In the background section. Note that she isn't even giving these facts herself, but repeating what was decided in earlier cases.

but it was at least brought into law by a full Congress and President, not by one judge.

Congress and the President can pass a law that is unconstitutional. The courts are supposed to protect us from such unconstitutional laws.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Never fear she'll be here as soon as she's done ranting about the nutjob speaking at Columbia.....give her time...her fingers can only type so fast ya know!

Oh and for the "record" I blame all the idiots in congress who passed it too but then most of them were Dubya's party to begin with...big shocker that it passed!

So you think the guy speaking at Columbia wasn't a nutjob?

The Patriot Act originally passed 98 - 1. And why blame Congress? It was the right thing to do!

 

[salmoneous]

But, in order for her ruling to be valid, doesn't the case have to have standing? Since when is a judge allowed to rule on a case without standing?

The judge spends 4 pages of her ruling on standing. See pages 21-24, the section titled "Standing". She explains much better than I do why the defendant has standing in the case. Which part of the judges explanation do you disagree with?

 

[Tyler's Dad]

Whether your statements are true or not, they played no role in the judges ruling. She did not rule on whether or not there was probable cause in this case. That Teh specifics of the case were settled by prior agreement of the parties. She ruled on whether or not the requirements of the Patriot Act satisfied the 4th Amendment.

But it was the use of these tactics, that allowed her to make her ruling. The Patriot Act was used to do this monitoring, without the need of a warrant. It was this that also brought her into the case to rule on whether or not this, along with their continueed use of the evidence they found during the searches, was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.

 

[hydster]

So you think the guy speaking at Columbia wasn't a nutjob?

The Patriot Act originally passed 98 - 1. And why blame Congress? It was the right thing to do!

Where did I say I didn't think the guy was a nutjob?? Oh that's right I didn't. ASSume much do we?? I said she was over there ranting on the thread about the nutjob. Thanks for playing though!

And I think the Patriot Act sucks and I think the current administration sucks as well.

 

[crcormier]

So you think the guy speaking at Columbia wasn't a nutjob?

The Patriot Act originally passed 98 - 1. And why blame Congress? It was the right thing to do!

And a tasty way to give up freedoms.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

And a tasty way to give up freedoms.

I haven't given up any freedoms.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Where did I say I didn't think the guy was a nutjob?? Oh that's right I didn't. ASSume much do we?? I said she was over there ranting on the thread about the nutjob. Thanks for playing though!

And I think the Patriot Act sucks and I think the current administration sucks as well.

So what are you calling me?