After shopping at a Wal-Mart store, David Eckert failed to make a complete stop at a stop-sign before he pulled into traffic to leave the plaza. He was stopped by police for the infraction.
The officer asked Eckert to step out of the vehicle. At that point, law-enforcement claim they observed that Eckert appeared to be "clenching his buttocks" and that such an observation was grounds for a search for drugs. They also claim then that a drug-sniffing K-9 alerted to the scent of drugs on the car seat. This all became grounds for a judge to sign a warrant, ordering a search of the man's anal cavity.
Police brought their suspect to a medical facility where doctors refused to perform the task, on ethical grounds.
Police then brought their suspect to another facility, in another county, where the search warrant was not valid. That medical facility proceeded with the anal-probing however, over the continued objections of Mr. Eckert.
1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
The Chief of police would not comment on the case, and referred reporters to an attorney. When asked what assurances he could give that people would not be abused or violated by his police officers, the Chief replied simply:
"We follow the law in every aspect and we follow policies and protocols that we have in place." -Chief Brandon Gigante
When reporters tried to get a statement from the medical center that performed the procedures, they did not bother to defend their actions, but simply replied "no comment."
They did however, send Mr. Eckert a bill, and are now threatening to sue him if he does not pay it.
"If the officers in Hidalgo County and the City of Deming are seeking warrants for anal cavity searches based on how they're standing and the warrant allows doctors at the Gila Hospital of Horrors to go in and do enemas and colonoscopies without consent, then anyone can be seized and that's why the public needs to know about this." -Shannon Kennedy, Attorney
Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits July 7, 2013. Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability. In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits. Read more at: Whiteout Press
Supreme Court vs. The People: 5-to-4 Does It Again ...In other words, a drug company that kills or maims us by pushing drugs on us through the corrupt health care system and is beholden to profit only, stands protected in law. Yet, these same drug companies fund medical training and "made to order" research, as well as, exert extensive influence on FDA drug approval process. They wine and dine doctors and pay them consultant fees to ghost write on their behalf and become their front-line sales force. We the people take the risks with our lives... See the full article at: HuffPost Politics
US Supreme Court rules against use of forced blood draws in all DUI cases. Justice Sonia SotomayorAmerica's top court does not want cops forcibly extracting blood from motorists without a warrant. The Supreme Court on Wednesday found Tyler McNeely's constitutional rights were violated when he was taken to a hospital for a blood draw after a Missouri state patrolman accused him of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in October 2010. The state trooper says McNeely was speeding and weaving across the centerline at around 2:08am on that fateful day. McNeely's speech was slurred, he smelled of alcohol and he failed the standard field sobriety tests. The officer wanted a breath test, but McNeely declined. At a hospital, McNeely also refused a blood tests. The blood was taken anyway and his blood alcohol content (BAC) was measured at 0.15. The officer never sought a warrant. Read more at: theNewspaper.com PDF file for the 48-page decision: CLICK HERE
In this day and age it certainly seems rare when the Supreme Court rules against an expansion of police powers. This decision however, seems to be in keeping with the true spirit of the Constitution and the 4th Amendment which states:
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
In many states, like here in New York state where this blog is based, drivers have long maintained a right to refusal for not only blood tests, but also for breathalyzer alcohol analyses as well. A refusal can trigger all sorts of other penalties from the DMV including revocations of your right to drive and monetary civil penalties as well, but a person does still maintain the right to refuse the invasive search... even when a police officer has probable cause to believe you are in criminal violation of the law by driving under the influence of a controlled substance.
This decision by the US Supreme Court upholds that standard.
This decision might also be seen as a precedent for drug/alcohol testing in general, and the testing of welfare recipients in particular. This idea of drug testing people who partake of government services, particularly the poor and destitute, has grown in popularity in recent years, especially among those with a right-wing/conservative political bend. Ironically enough it is usually the political-right who will obstinately defend the strictest interpretations of the Constitution in most instances, but do an about-face when it comes to protecting the liberty of folks whom they view with disdain. 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and the Freedom of Hypocrisy
The conservative will often say that "welfare is not a right" or that is not in the Constitution. This may be true, but driving is not a right either, according to the laws in most states, and what is in the Constitution is the right to be free from invasive searches without a warrant. There is no asterisk there to make exception for welfare recipients, anyone partaking of any government service, or someone driving down a taxpayer funded public highway.
We see in this Supreme Court ruling that even when a police officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is under the influence of a controlled substance, they must still have a warrant before conducting a substance screening on the suspect. Again, this is despite the fact that the officer believes a crime has occurred, this is despite the fact that the person is in a public area and potential threat to public safety. And even though a person holding a driver license has essentially already consented when they made a contractual agreement with the state in order to hold that license, that person may still refuse the search by a police officer. Again, the person may be held accountable for breaching that contract with the DMV by refusing the test, but cannot be held criminally accountable for exercising their 4th Amendment rights.
It seems inconceivable then, that a person on welfare could be held to a far less rigorous standard without the practice being considered highly biased and prejudicial. After all, a person on welfare is not even accused of any crime at all, nor is there any reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual receiving a government benefit is under the influence of a controlled substance.
Essentially, drug testing a welfare applicant would be the same as drug testing anyone who applies for a driver license, or even a permit to carry a concealed pistol as another example. Drug testing the welfare recipient monthly would be like requiring the same from any other person who has a government-issued permit. Allowing for random screenings would be the no more justified than randomly stopping and testing anyone who uses any government service even, like public transportation, walking down a public street, or getting the Federally protected mail from your mailbox.
So far, the Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing of welfare recipients is indeed a violation of the 4th Amendment. With this ruling pertaining to suspected drunk drivers, it seems as though that standard is still being held, at lest for the time-being.
For more reasons other than the 4th Amendment of why drug testing should not be allowed, read:
Dimethyltryptamine, or DMT is a Schedule I drug according to the Federal government and the DEA.
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no
currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules
with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. -SOURCE
Because of this classification, anyone reading this article is felon. You are not only in possession of DMT, but also a user, and a manufacturer of it. You see, DMT is a naturally ocurring chemical in the brains of humans, animals, and elsewhere in nature as well. Which also makes you a distributor of Schedule I drugs if you give away free kittens, or sell your lawn clippings to your neighbor for landfill.
Check out a more in-depth article from Natural News.
The Massachusetts legal system is reeling in the wake of a 27-count indictment against one of their leading laboratory technicians. 35-year-old drug lab worker Annie Dookhan has been accused of tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice.
The full impact of her alleged crimes may never be known, and cannot be overstated. In this day and age of scientific law-enforcement, with so much of the public convinced that laboratory work is the "holy grail" in any criminal prosecution, the integrity of those labs is the pinnacle of public trust; the very bedrock of how we have come to even define justice itself, in so many cases, in the modern era. Popular television shows reinforce this idea that laboratory evidence is irrefutable and absolute. Prosecutors are want to nurture this sentiment among jurors.
Of course, any reasonable person might consider that even in science there are errors from time to time. With DNA evidence for example, we sometimes hear the "odds" of accuracy. Sometimes as accurate as one in a hundred-thousand. Sometimes though, huge odds are defied as in the case of lab
analyst Kathryn Troyer, who discovered a near-match defying 1-in-113 billion odds between two felons in the same state.
What happens though, when we throw in a more human element to the science? Something that undermines even the very best science. Personally, I never really thought too much about it, but always sort of assumed that the relationships between lab staff and the legal system were kept sterile, to a large degree. I assumed that some measures were in place to ensure lab workers were not only ethically impartial, but also that systems of anonymity and lab-controls were in place to reinforce the ethical standard. I even assumed that lab work was double-checked. In other words, I foolishly believed in the system and never thought that something like this could happen. I certainly never thought I would ever see a case of this nature, of such magnitude.
Annie Dookhan began her career at the state's Jamaica Plains drug lab in 2003. In that time, she has handled evidence in more than 34,000 cases. Any convictions stemming from evidence she processed are now likely to be overturned. Worse, this has called into question the integrity of the entire lab, and countless more cases. The lab has since been shut down and numerous people have been fired or resigned, but not before the damage was done.
In June of 2011 she was caught improperly removing drugs from evidence storage in 60 different cases, but apparently her supervisors did nothing to stop her from being involved in more drug cases after that. Later that year she wrote in a private email to Norfolk Assistant District Attorney George Papachristos, “I have full access to anything and everything, one of the advantages, so some of the other chemists are resentful of me.”
The long and often quite personal email exchanges with Papachristos have been closely scrutinized and seen by many as unethical from both a professional and personal standpoint. Dookhan's marriage has been on the rocks since her husband uncovered emails back in 2009. The prosecutor has not been charged with any crime himself though, and it is not known if the flirtatious banner ever led to more than a handful of personal meetings. Nonetheless, it does show a much closer relationship than one might expect between a prosecutor, and a lab technician who is expected to be impartial. So much so, that Papachristos resigned from the DA's office.
Clearly, from her own words, impartiality was never even something she considered. She did not see her job as being a technician who processes evidence, but rather her stated goal was “getting [drug dealers] off the streets.” It should go without saying here, that this was certainly not her job as a lab technician. Nevertheless she was all too happy to do favors for prosecutors, while shunning defense attorneys even when she was required to give evidence to them. She saw herself as part of the prosecution team, as did many prosecutors themselves, with one declaring "No no no!!! I need you!!!" when Dookhan said she would not be able to testify in a case.
Dookhan is alleged to have lied on the witness stand in court about having a Master's degree in chemistry, and shot out emails giving herself grandiose job titles she simply did not have. In correspondence with various agencies she identified herself with self-appointed titles like "special agent of operations” or "on-call terrorism supervisor." She even went so far as to create fake email conversations with a US attorney, who's name she misspelled, and forwarded to other recipients.
Assuming of course that all of these allegations are true, one has to wonder how such an obviously pathological liar could go on for so long without anyone bothering to consider that something like this might happen. Police and prosecutors were clearly willing to look the other way and even cultivate a close relationship with Dookhan, to encourage her, in order to secure easy convictions. As of yet, there are no criminal charges against anyone else aside from the lab-tech herself, but it seems clear that ethical and moral
obligations were tossed aside in favor of making their jobs easier.
As a result, hundred of millions of dollars have been wasted. Entire careers have been built to be little more than sandcastles. And tens of thousands convicted felons are now poised to flood the streets of Massachusetts, then out across the country. If it was their intent to actually make the public safe, then the government certainly failed miserably in that mandate. Not only because of the threat posed by these potentially dangerous criminals being set loose upon society, but because of the threat posed by the government itself.
It may be all-too-easy to assume that all or even most of these convicts were actually guilty, but that simply does not hold up to the facts, and certainly carries no weight against the core values of our entire justice system. In the face of reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is paramount. Without these standards, we might just go ahead and just give the police a license to kill at will and close down the courts.
Understanding this, we must assume now that the government sent more than 34,000 innocent people to prison on the word of just one deluded lab technician. That my friends, is more dangerous than any drug dealer. Even if only in our hearts we assume that just some of these convicts were actually innocent, imagine for a moment that one of them happened to be you, your spouse, your parent or child. Imagine for a moment how many lives have been irreparably laid to waste by the lies of just one woman, and a government who did not care. A government that in fact has a vested interest in securing more convictions even if they are not justified. A government that encouraged this woman to commit her crimes against the people. A government that presumes guilt of anyone who crosses into their sights, and has even dispatched agents to threaten the hundreds of inmates who have already been exonerated.
"We tell them, 'Listen, we know what you were doing before and we're watching you.'" -Boston Police Commissioner, Edward Davis
Perhaps the most frightening aspect to all of this is that this can only be the tip of the iceberg. This woman was so clearly delusional and so easily cultivated this relationship with prosecutors, it begs the question how prevalent this sort of thing is throughout the country. Especially in labs and agencies where this sort of thing is likely done more discreetly. If there are no practical standards in place to prevent something like this from happening, how could we possibly trust that this sort of thing is not rampant? How many lab workers compromise cases for monetary gain, for romantic favors, for promotions, or to simply stroke their own ego? How many might even quietly carry on the work of a zealot in their own private war against people they see as evil? Are we supposed to ignorantly believe that this is simply an isolated incident, one bad apple, and assume that it would never happen again? Are we honestly supposed to believe that some fear of the law will prevent lab-techs from committing these sorts of crimes, when the government itself benefits from these crimes?
If convicted, will Annie Dookhan be sentenced to as much time in prison as the innocent people she put there would have done?
Police got a judge to sign off on a no-knock warrant to go after a woman who had been living in this man's house. Despite the fact that the woman had moved out, and they knew she had moved out, they chose to proceed with the raid anyway. This is how it went down.
((( WARNING: This video shows a man being shot to death in his own home by armed invaders. )))
Unfortunatley, this video has is being actively blocked by unkown parties. You may view it through the link below for a short time. Please download a copy before it is gone.
The following article has a more in-depth analyses:
Police Shoot Man 3 Times Immediately Upon Entering House: Hayden’s Note; the Failed War on Drugs A joint drug task force from Weber and Morgan county, Utah, executed a
search warrant on Todd Blair’s house on September 16th, 2010, resulting
in the shooting death of Blair only two seconds after entry was made. The “Weber-Morgan Strike Force” initiated an investigation into
Blair’s residence with a focus on his roommate, Melanie Chournos. Police
stated in their application for warrant that Ms. Chournos would likely
destroy evidence upon their arrival, and requested a night time,
“no-knock warrant” for the squirrely female. However, prior to the
raid, law enforcement became aware of the fact Blair’s roommate had
moved out of the house. With warrant already in hand, or rather, still
back at the police station, the Strike Force decided to conduct the
night time raid anyway. Friends and family of Mr. Blair plainly admit to his drug usage, but said he was a drug addict and not a drug dealer. After the SWAT team hit the door three times in an attempt to open
it, and as the video clearly shows, Mr. Blair appears in a far hallway,
shirtless, and with a golf club in his hands. Certainly, any reasonable person would arm themselves at the sound of
their front door being kicked in for fear of becoming a victim of
robbery, or worse.
The rest of the article is archived below for discussion purposes. Please click the inline link in the title to visit the original source.
Unfortunately for Mr. Blair, the home intruders were seven police
officers in body armor, along with the full protection of the District
Attorney’s office behind them. Strike Force Sgt. Troy Burnett
immediately shoots Mr. Blair three times, in the chest and face, without
giving any commands to surrender or drop the golf club.
This should startle and shock the conscience of anyone reading this
article. How many times do we read in the news that “Police Serve
Warrant at Wrong House” or “Police Shoot and Kill Man at Wrong Address”?
If you find yourself being awakened to the sounds of your front door
being kicked in,perhaps you should simply lay down like a sheep until
you are certain it is not the law enforcers. Are we supposed to place
our personal safety on hold until we positively identify who it is that
is breaking and entering?
Police rarely announce their presence until they are already coming
through the door. It can happen to anyone; it merely takes botched
intelligence or lack of planning, and armed men wearing badges might be
killing you tonight for merely standing in your hallway in a moment of
panic and confusion. No chance to surrender, no option to
apologize, or even wipe the sleep from your eyes – two to the chest and
one to the face – and you’re back asleep.
As a former police officer, I understand there needs to be a balance;
law enforcement need to protect themselves, as do home owners, but I
feel as though it boils down to one simple, common denominator: the
failed War on Drugs. Local departments are given Federal money for drug
arrests, regardless of the size, quantity, or quality; it is a carrot
on a stick, being dangled in front of their face. The more arrests a
department makes, the bigger their budget grows, allowing for additional
units, overtime, fancy new gear, and other incentives, not to mention
asset forfeiture laws that enable police departments to seize houses,
cars, cash, and weapons, many times without the need for an actual
conviction!
Where do all of these people go who are arrested for petty crimes?
More often than not, they are placed into “for-profit, private
prisons.” These companies, such as Corrections Corporation of America,
are traded on Wall Street based upon the number of bodies that are
imprisoned within. CCA, and others like it, have extremely powerful
lobbyists who have the ears of Senators, Police Chiefs, and the DEA. In
fact, America incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation in the world.
Communist China, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Iran, etc. et al, have
lower imprisonment rates than the United States of America; Home of the
Free. As with any investigation, one need only “follow the money…”
“Justified”
If we dissect the video, and apply all of the usual law enforcement
cautions, warnings, and training, we still have a shooting that in my
opinion, should be up for prosecution. Instead, the DA’s office publicly
stated that the officer-involved shooting was “justified.”
Police officers are ingrained with the “21 foot rule”, which states
that a person armed with a knife or similar edged weapon, can cover 21
feet of open ground in the same amount of time it takes for an officer to recognize the threat and draw his weapon [approximately 1 1/2 seconds].
While this is a proven, and intelligent training lesson, officers
executing a search warrant already have their weapons ready, have the
element of surprise, and are going through the front door with the
anticipation of confronting a deadly adversary. I believe it is prudent
to say that the “21 foot rule” doesn’t necessarily apply in Mr. Blair’s
situation, given the odds stacked against him.
Secondly, with furniture between Mr. Blair and Sgt. Burnett that
would slow his approach, along with the fact he was only armed with a
golf club, I believe this shooting was a bad decision and the result of a
trigger happy front man. Sgt. Burnett later made statements recalling
the event, saying that Blair was within arm’s reach of him when he
fired, although the video clearly shows Blair a minimum of 8-10 feet
away, if not further.
The Huffington Post reports Sgt. Burnett as saying, “I was always confident in my close-range shooting ability, and the ammo, I’m absolutelypleased with. It did its job.”
This boils down to willfully shooting a man in the face and being in
control of your emotions, muscle memory, and reactions. If you can not
be trusted to apply logic and calm reasoning in adrenaline-filled
situations, perhaps you are not cut out for being the point man in a
SWAT stack. There is a massive difference between effectively sizing up
the situation and hesitating under pressure. I suppose some of us
prefer to make sound decisions, even at the slightly elevated risk of
delaying our action for a second or two, instead of blindly reacting out
of panic, tunnel-vision, and fear.
“I didn’t think about saying words [giving verbal
commands to surrender]. I just thought about not getting hit…or slashed
or whatever,” Burnett told investigators, saying that he thought the
golf club was “a sword or something.” He also said that it did not
appear to him that Blair was moving toward him, an admission that could
prove crucial in a federal criminal or civil case.
These statements are indicative of “coaching” on what to say rather
than true recollection of the events surrounding the decision to shoot
or not. Without the inclusion of the “sword” reference, Sgt. Burnett’s
armor and helmet, if he were wearing one, would have surely protected
him against blunt force trauma from the golf club and it is likely that
supervisors who responded to the scene; perhaps even their own internal
investigators, suggested Burnett mention fear of being “…slashed, or
whatever” in order to further justify the use of deadly force.
Law enforcement officers can use deadly force only when they fear
great bodily harm or imminent death, and if Sgt. Burnett was only
afraid of being hit by a golf club, it stands to reason that a jury
would find the facts leading up to the shooting did not warrant deadly
force given the totality of the circumstances: seven-person SWAT team,
no-knock warrant, element of surprise, armor, if any, as well as
distance, lack of advancement or aggression, etc.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune,
the raid was hastily planned, diverting from protocol. Sgt. Burnett
told investigators that it is “absolutely not our standard” to carry out
such a raid with as little planning as was done, reports the Tribune.
The raid was conducted so hastily, in fact, that police forgot the warrant.
According to the Tribune, in the video it obtained, an officer can be
heard asking: “Did somebody grab a copy of the warrant off my desk?”
Blair’s death raises the question of why multiple, heavily-armed
officers were sent to raid a drug addict – and why Weber and Morgan
counties in Utah would even need a “Narcotics Strike Force.” Local
police forces are able to keep property they seize in drug raids, often
without the necessity of a conviction, creating a perverse incentive to
reinvest in military equipment and carry out additional raids in the
infamous War on Drugs.
After searching the entire house, police only recovered some drug
paraphernalia and a single, small pink baggie with what appeared to be a
white crystal substance.
Kevin Hayden is a former New Orleans police
officer-turned-truth seeker. He endured Hurricane Katrina’s chaos and
societal collapse in the days following and after 5 years in New
Orleans, moved to Oklahoma. Kevin currently runs www.TruthisTreason.net and
works on local politics and education about our monetary, food, and
foreign policies while building an off-grid shipping container homestead
and helping people become prepared. He can be contacted directly at Contact@TruthisTreason.net
[Editorial note: I am aware that it is much
easier to play Monday-morning quarterback when dissecting an incident
caught on film, but I believe in police accountability, regardless of
the situation, and if no one else is willing to say what needs to be
said, then I will be more than happy to offer my opinion.]
This video goes back a number of years now, but it is still as relevant today as ever. Specifically, because these botched raids still continue, innocent people continue to be assaulted and killed by our so-called protectors, and because the fascist police-state has only gotten worse each year. I have included this video in several articles, but I think it deserves it's own entry here to make it easier to share.
In a precedent-setting case, U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled that it was reasonable for DEA agents to enter private property without permission and without a warrant. Further, the judge adopted the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan that evidence collected by surveillance cameras, which were placed on the property by trespassing Federal agents, did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendants who now face life in prison for growing marijuana. The property in this case, was protected by a locked gate and marked with "no trespassing" notice signs.
"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," -Magistrate Callahan
There are actually two separate arguments to be made here. The first, is the Constitutional matter of the Fourth Amendment. The second would be to ask if the police have the right to vilate the law in order to enforce the law, which we will discuss below in a few moments.
Were the judge's wrong in stating that the rights of the defendant's had not been violated?
"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." -4th Amendment
Debatable, but the Amendment does not specify property, other than to say "effects" which is also defined as moveable property. Land is not moveable (though it is transferable.) This interpretation is more than likely they basis of a 1984 Supreme Court case called Oliver v. United States,
in which a majority of the justices said that "open fields" could be
searched without warrants because they're not covered by the Fourth
Amendment.
On the other hand, the word "houses" can be interpreted to include land in the common area immediately surrounding a home, any enclosed area of property adjoining a habitated building, and so forth. This is referred to as curtilage.
The word house is defined as: A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family.
In other words, once a fence is put up, the land could certainly be considered as part of the structure of the house and no longer an "open field." Again, in this particular case, the property was protected by a locked gate and signs notifying potential transgressors that they would be guilty of trespassing, should they cross the marked boundary.
So now we see that this land could indeed fall under the purview of the Fourth Amendment, through the word "house" if the enclosed property is a part of the dwelling of the property owner. Other examples might include your enclosed porch, a garage, a carport, a barn, and so forth.
The second argument to be noted here, is the fact that the Federal agents committed a crime in order to gather their evidence, and that the evidence was obtained as a direct result of that criminal act. Can police break the law in order to enforce the law? In many instances, the answer is an unfortunate yes.
However, in these cases, the breaking of the law is given special permission by operational commanders and may be specified by a court in individual cases or through "affirmative defense" clauses written in at the time a law is adopted. Statutory protections for law-enforcement are in place for run-of-the-mill police work, such as when a police officer makes a drug-buy from a criminal, and the drugs are turned over immediately as evidence, rather than taken home by the officer for personal use.Deception is permissible and cannot itself be said to be a violation of law.
Other more questionable but often approved activity might be deemed as necessary as part of peripheral concerns in an ongoing operation. An example of this might be when a narcotics officer operating in an undercover capacity is forced to ingest narcotics in order to maintain operational integrity and even his own personal safety.
While arguments could be made for or against these sanctioned violations of law by government agents, one place where we should certainly draw the line is when evidence is obtained through a direct violation of law. An extreme example of this might be to have a police officer carry out a killing at the behest of a mafia boss, in order to bring a murder-by-proxy charge against that mafia boss. Another example might be that a police officer can't buy a joint from a drug dealer, smoke it, and then arrest the drug dealer for selling him the joint. Yet nother example might be in a case where a police officer assaults a person in order to glean information. It is not and should not be allowed.
In essence, that is what we have here in this case though. Even if the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated the police still committed a criminal act against the property owner, in order to gather their information, and said information is a direct result of that violation. This is an important distinction. The police did not just violate a law, like maybe smoking a joint in order to get more information, they committed an act directly against the law in place to protect a citizen property owner.
If the police surveillance had been done from outside of the property and looking in, there might still be grounds for a Fourth Amendment defense. Do police need a warrant to use a telephoto lens to peer into the windows of your home? Do police need a warrant to fly overhead and take a heat-signature snapshot of your home and it's contents? Maybe, maybe not. Such evidence might be allowed or thrown out on a case by case basis.
But in this instance, we are talking about government agents actually breaking the law, not simply pushing back the boundaries of their legal purview to conduct a search. They did indeed knowingly pass onto private property. That is a violation of trespass law. The violation is elevated to a criminal trespass because the property was fenced. In some states, trespassing while armed is a felony, and it is more than likely that they were carrying firearms. The property owner might also be able to show that the placement of the surveillance equipment did damage to his property, which would constitute an additional charge of criminal mischief. Often too, each of these charges may be elevated when each act is committed while in the commission of another crime. In other words, their violation of law is no small thing, and if you as a civilian were to commit such an act, you would likely spend years in prison and be sued for extensive civil liability as well.
All in all, there is one final question you should ask yourself. Why should police and government agents have this power? Why didn't they just go get a warrant in the first place? The simple but scary answer is because the government is now setting the precedent that your private property is no longer private. That with or without cause, they can come onto your property and do whatever they want. Sounds like Communism to me, not the America I was raised to believe in.
Personally, I am no pot-head. So in that respect this case has no bearing on me personally one way or the other. I am not over here smoked-out mumbling "right on man, right on" and applauding this as a victory for marijuana smokers.
However, I do believe that the war on drugs is a terrible waste of resources, and is more damaging than the drugs themselves. Even when it comes to harder drugs, other than marijuana, I believe in decriminalization.
I also believe that a jury has not only the right, but the duty to return an acquittal, regardless of the facts, when they see a law as unjust or being improperly applied.
NJWeedman found not guilty in pot distribution case
MOUNT HOLLY — Ed “NJWeedman” Forchion hopes the not-guilty
verdict a Burlington County jury rendered in his pot distribution trial
plants a seed for other medical marijuana patients and sparks a change
in the law.
“I think other patients should argue the same points. They can
call it the ‘Weedman defense,’ ” he said after a jury of 10 women and
two men returned the verdict Thursday following an hourlong deliberation
that ended the three-day trial. “The law is wrong. My jury heard that
and understood that.”
Forchion, who claims dual residency in Pemberton
Township and Los Angeles, was acquitted of possession with the intent to
distribute a pound of marijuana that police found in his trunk during a
traffic stop on April 1, 2010, in Mount Holly.
The state contended that the sheer volume in
Forchion’s possession and the $2,000 in cash he had in his pocket at the
time of his arrest were tell-tale signs of distribution, despite the
absence of other packaging paraphernalia.
Forchion has maintained that he is no drug dealer. He
brought the marijuana from California, where he is a licensed medical
marijuana patient, for his own use while on a trip to New Jersey to
visit his family, he claimed.
“I don’t use it the way the state says. To me, it’s
medicine, it’s food,” Forchion said in his closing argument, noting for
the jury that he had been eating pot-laced cookies throughout the trial.
“I feel I’m the victim of a flawed law.”
NJ “Weedman” found not guilty in jury nullification victory
With few options left for people to protect themselves from the ever
growing police state, an old and long forgotten aspect of constitutional
law is making a huge comeback, and becoming very popular in cases where people are facing jail time for nonviolent offenses.
This reemerging defense is the act of jury nullification, which is
basically the right for any juror to not only judge the facts of the
case, but to also actually judge the validity of the law itself. This
means that if a jury feels that a defendant is facing an unjust charge
they actually have the right to rule in their favor even if they are
technically guilty.
Ed Forchion is a medical cannabis user and cancer patient known as the
“NJ weedman”. Ed claims dual residency in Pemberton Township, New
Jersey and Los Angeles, California. Due to his residency in California
he has a prescription for Cannabis and is legally allowed to grow and
consume the plant in that state.
However, he is not legally allowed to possess the
plant in the state of New Jersey and unfortunately while in New Jersey
on April 1, 2012 Forchion was stopped by police and found with a pound
of cannabis and $2,000, enough to get slapped with a distribution
charge.
Okay, now this is totally creepy, and right in keeping with what natural health advocates have been saying for years. For a company the size of Google, to be actively blocking vitamin supplements and natural products is a terrible omen that outright illegalization is right around the corner now.
(NaturalNews) If you have ever done any sort of comparison shopping
online, chances are you have probably used Google's Shopping portal to
pull up product information and compare prices. But if you live in the
U.S. and try to use Google Shopping to buy vitamins, supplements,
personal care products, and even many health foods, your search queries
will now turn up blank, as Google has apparently blocked access to all vitamins and natural products for American customers.
Right
around June 28 of this year, Google Shopping users first began noticing
that search queries for many common health products like "vitamin C"
and "fish oil" began turning up zero results, whereas before they would
generate a copious list of vendors that offered these products, as well
as corresponding price information. In the days and weeks that followed,
these same users learned that vitamins and natural products in general were no longer showing up in Google Shopping.
When
asked about the issue by several concerned shoppers, Google's public
relations team reportedly gave vague and incomplete answers about why
natural products are no longer showing up in its Shopping section, even
though they are still showing up in Google's general web search area.
Others with inside information claim that Google has quietly, without
any announcement to the public or its venders, added vitamins,
supplements, and other nutritional products to its "sensitive category"
of products, which means they are completely blocked from Google Shopping searches.
In
either case, Google Shopping users are now unable to search for
nutritional products, which means it has become that much harder for the
average person to access vitamins and dietary supplements online. And
the venders that used to sell such products through Google's site --
many of these businesses had been paying Google
to include their products as part of Google Shopping searches -- are
now watching their businesses decline, as Google holds a significant
monopoly on the product search and comparison market.
"Google publishes a list of products
in [the natural health] category that are blocked as a matter of
corporate policy in the public interest. So shopping results for (things
like) steroids are always blocked," says the Healthy Chronicle, an online health blog sponsored by California-based supplement company iMedmart.com.
"(But) we're talking about something completely different here --
Google is blocking whole categories of respected, brand-name products
... from online shoppers for no stated reason."
Now this video is a bit dated, and Codex Alimentarius was stalled for a short time until President Obama finally signed off on it without any public knowledge or media coverage. Nevertheless, what is happening is real, and is probably the biggest threat mankind has ever faced. We talk about a lot of things on this site, but there is probably no bigger, more important, and under-reported issue than this.
Here is the short version, but the full length will be linked below:
This article was submitted by a good friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous. He was inspired to put it together though, after reading our own article on the matter.
This seems to be a real-hot button issue lately, that myself and a few
friends have taken up as sort of our "pet" issue. Pet-peeve might be
more like it, seeing how people are actually swallowing this fascist
crap. Sadly, other friends of mine who I have a lot of respect for in
other ways, have fallen prey to the rhetoric, and actually believe that
this drug-testing thing is actually a good idea.
On July 1st of last year, Florida put it into effect for a number of
months before the courts stepped in and said it was un-Constitutional.
Despite the total failure of that program both fiscally and legally,
Georgia is now slated to implement their own drug testing program
exactly one year later to the day, on this July 1st.
Well, I have decided to throw down the gauntlet. I challenge anyone to
give me one good, logically sound reason to believe that this is a good
idea. Because up to this point all I see is fascism and bigotry as the
lowest common denominator in this sort of legislation.
To get things rolling, I have put together this piece, challenging some
of the more common reasons people give for supporting drug-testing of
welfare applicants and recipients.
It will save the taxpayers money.
FALSE. In Michigan and Florida it has already proved to cost taxpayers a lot more than it saved. These programs were an expansion
of social services, not "smaller government" and not an effective
cost-cutting measure at all. Other states that considered passing
similar laws, rejected the idea when their own studies found that it
would cost far more than it would ever save to implement a drug-testing
program of this nature.
In Florida, taxpayers are now left on the hook to reimburse payment for
the 97.4% of applicants who passed the drug screening. All of that money
is going directly into the pockets of the private drug-testing
companies. Companies like Solantic,
which was founded by welfare drug-testing champion Florida Governor
Rick Scott, and then handed over to his wife for safe keeping amid the
fervor of an obvious conflict of interest.
...2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the
drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state...
Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for
the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This
is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who
failed the test... the testing cost the government an extra $45,780.
No one has even tried to crunch the numbers to find out the actual final
cost to taxpayer either. The test is only one component of a now hugely
expanded welfare bureaucracy which must digest the test results,
process the information, manage appeals, and battle the Constitutionality
of the program in courts. What will this cost the taxpayer in man-hours
for social workers and other state employees? What will the cost to
taxpayers be for something as simple as the new forms which must be
filled out? It doesn't seem unreasonable at all to guess the cost of the
program might actually be 3 or 4 times the cost of the actual test
itself.
Drug testing will stop druggies from applying for welfare.
FALSE. An internal document states unequivocally...
“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload”
This shows that there is no "hidden" cost benefit to the program. It
also shatters the myth that poor people use illicit drugs at a
significantly higher rate than the national average. Studies done on the
subject reject
that myth, and many show that people in poverty are actually less
likely to use illicit drugs. That conclusion is supported by the
Florida statistics too. If there was no sudden downturn in the number of
welfare applications when the drug-testing went into effect, then the
2.6% who did test positive is a fairly accurate assessment of detectable
drug use among welfare applicants at any given time, seeing that the
program provided no significant deterrent.
At least I won't be supporting an addict, even if it costs more.
FALSE. Once again.
Most drugs process out of a person's system within 24-72 hours, which is
plenty of time to prepare for a welfare drug test, whether applying for
the first time or re-certifying. So you will still be supporting the
most hardcore drug abusers out there regardless of costly drug testing
and bigger government. The same thing goes for alcohol, which is not
even illegal of course, yet which is the most dangerous and frequently
abused drug out there. You will still be supporting them too. Consider
as well, the explosion of prescription drugs in society. Even when taken
according to doctor's instructions, many people are dieing or becoming
addicted.
So really we must consider the moral dilemma of not helping people in a battle with addiction
in the first place. How do we differentiate between the addict who got
their start on a school yard, and the addict who was assigned their
first fix by a doctor? Who is more in need of assistance than a
end-stage drug addict who is simply not capable of meeting their most
basic life needs? Someone with diabetes perhaps, or cancer? Those
diseases are often brought on by poor choices or bad habits too.
Smoking, tanning, over-eating, poor diet. Do we reject all of those
people from welfare too? There are many people who would shake their
head yes, but those are the same people who reject welfare in its
entirety, and are simply using the drug-testing issue as a cover for
their bigotry toward poor folk. That is their right of course, but
bigotry should never be a basis of law. So let's not follow the
red-herring here and get back to the real issue.
Whether or not one thinks they should be supporting an
addict, this law is not going to do anything to change it, and you will
still be laying out money for a program that does not achieve your
objective. There will still be people doing drugs and collecting public
assistance funds, regardless of a costly drug-testing program.
And the few that do get caught? Pot-heads mostly. According to the state
agency the majority of rejected applicants tested positive for
marijuana. Hardly the die-hard smack fiend that might fit the common
stereotype. Can weed be addictive? To a degree, sure, but not so much as
harder drugs, or even nicotine or alcohol. And as we have already
established, true addiction is a disease anyway, which should be treated
as such, not discriminated against. Since marijuana is the only thing
that is really turning up in these drug tests, what are people really saying, when they support a law for drug testing of the poor?
I don't want people on welfare spending my money on drugs, testing will put a stop to that.
FALSE. You guessed it.
It only means that the tiny fraction of the people on welfare who do use
drugs, will turn to harder more dangerous drugs which are not so easily
detected, or simply become drunks instead of pot-heads. Which would you
rather see wandering the streets looking for a job, a mellowed-out
stoner, or a vicious unstable drunk?
Granted, people should not be spending public assistance funds on any
sort of vice, but then again, we are talking about human beings here
too, who actually require some form of recreation to keep from going
insane, literally. Not everyone has a fitness center or a social hall in
their neighborhood, and we all have our vices. One could just as easily
say that people on welfare don't deserve to watch television, don't
deserve to eat anything but gruel, should never wear anything but
tattered rags, should sit in a tiny room staring at the walls all night
after walking the streets for 12 hours a day looking for a job that
isn't there. Is it really so offensive that someone like a homeless
veteran smoked a joint in a park once or twice this past month with some
hippy who walks her dog there? Is that such a high crime that we will
deny him food and shelter for the next year, perhaps to die in the
streets in the meantime?
The truth is that we all need some way to unwind and enjoy ourselves for
a bit. That need is probably even more acute for those living in
poverty, not less. Depression, loneliness, lack of resources, lack of
recreation, these are things that often lead to drug abuse in the first
place. Relaxing with a doob or socializing with a few friends around a
case of beer may be the very last things that a person living in poverty
has to hold on to in order to retain their humanity, even any
attachment to society. Maybe smoking a doob with the neighbor will get
someone into a construction job. Maybe having a beer at the pub will
lead to a job at the grill. Who are we to really judge?
Especially when you consider that, for the most part, people are not
actually spending welfare money on any drugs at all. Welfare does not
provide enough to live on in the first place, much less to support a
drug habit. Which sadly enough, is often another big reason why poor
folk turn to drugs in the first place. The allure of quick cash in the
black market to make up the short-ends when it comes to putting food on
the table and keeping the lights turned on. So then it is not welfare
money that is paying for drugs, but black market dollars instead. The
welfare money is still going to the basic necessities of life, not
drugs. Now one might argue that the drug money should be going to
keeping the lights on instead of the welfare money, but then you would
be making the case for legalizing drugs so that it could be declared and
taxed as income. So if you argue to legalize drugs while demanding
drug-testing, doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite?
Finally, to wrap up this section, it must be admitted that some people
will wind up spending public funds on drugs (or alcohol, or tobacco, or
chocolate, or caffeine) but drug testing is not going to stop that. It's
also not even something we should be so concerned about that we are
willing to shred up the Constitution and shoot ourselves in the foot
with the costs. Will people use welfare money for drugs? Sure. No system
is perfect. But what percentage of people on welfare are actually
spending public cash on drugs? Not the occasional pot-smoker, not the
pot dealer who gets high on his own supply. So out of the 2.6% of people
on welfare who are doing drugs, there is still only a tiny fraction of
that number, who are probably so far gone into their drug habit that
they will be dead within a few years anyway. Better off to just let them
have the damn few hundred bucks rather than dealing with them breaking
into your house.
If you are really concerned about where your tax dollars are going, you
would be much better off to demand answers about where these $2.3 TRILLION in tax dollars vanished to, or why a cop who sniffs coke off the dashboard of his squad car still gets his pension, or why you are funding all of these crimes, or why you are supporting a failed war on drugs.
It's for the children! Drug testing will protect them.
FALSE. No it won't. No more than cops protect kids by shooting the
family dog in front of a 7-year old. Whenever fascists come calling,
they tell you for it's for your protection, whenever they really want to
shove something down your throat they tell you it's for the children.
Drug testing of welfare recipients will put children directly
in harm's way. Specifically, when the parent is denied assistance, the
children will have to go without food, shelter, and basic immediate
needs. There is no child advocate standing there to take custody of a
child the moment a welfare applicant tests positive for drugs. Which
means that the child will indeed be forced to endure starvation and
neglect as a direct result of this policy, while they disappear onto the
streets. Now some may argue that it is the result of the parent's
irresponsible drug use, not the policy, but that argument is logically
flawed. First, because of the high risk of false-positives,
it is quite possible that the parent did not in fact use drugs, but
still turned up positive on a test. Secondly, it is the policy which is
denying direct aid that would be allotted for this child, not the
parent. The child's hunger will not be fixed by placing blame on the
parent. Blaming the parent in this case is like blaming the waiter for
burning your food. Sure, maybe they should have seen that it was burnt
when they brought it out, but they were not the one who burned it.
Some might argue that a child should be taken away immediately if a
parent tests positive for drugs, but that is a very dangerous precedent
to set. First, as we already pointed out with false-positives, the state
would be taking away children from parents who were not in fact drug
users, but who had perhaps used some nasal spray before the test, or
drank a Mountain Dew. Secondly, it would set a precedent that would not
be limited to just folks on welfare. This would mean that any
parent who ever tested positive for drugs, perhaps as part of a job
interview, would be subject to the state stepping in and taking their
children. Any arrest for simple possession, a DUI, those too would be
grounds for a children's removal from the home, even if it turned out
the parent was not even proved guilty in a court of law. A tool for the
state to come in and take children away based on a simple accusation
against parents who have in fact done nothing wrong.
Even if it turns out a parent actually is one of those dreaded
pot-smokers, would a child really be better off tossed into a state
facility or a foster home, where children are often beaten, raped and murdered?
Except under the most dire circumstances, a child is better off with a
parent, and the courts agree. In a controversial case, the State of NY overturned a ruling
which barred a level-3 sex offender from seeing his children, and even
opened the door so that he could sue social services for barring him
access to start with. (His conviction had nothing to do with any crime
against his children.)
...under New York's Family Court Act, they
cited two findings that required them to determine neglect. The first is
"proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional, or mental
impairment to the child." Second is the danger "must be a consequence
of the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care." The court noted the statutory test is not best or ideal care for children, but a minimum degree.
So we see here that it is the drug-testing law which creates the
neglect, by denying essential emergency services to benefit the child,
based on no actual violation of the law. Having a pot-smoking mother may
not be the ideal situation for a child, but it certainly
is not proof of any imminent danger. Remember, it is illegal to have
drugs on you, illegal to distribute them, but there is nothing
specifically illegal about having drugs in your system. Even if it were
illegal, then the welfare applicant must be tried and convicted in a
court of law, by a jury of their peers, before they could be seen as
responsible for anything having to do with drugs in their system. In the
meantime, it would still be the state themselves which were creating
the neglectful condition, not the parent. There are plenty of parents
out there who can smoke a joint on the weekend when the kids are away,
without endangering or neglecting the children in any way. Just as there
are parents who are responsible drinkers, without impeding on the
safety of their children. It is the government's refusal to assist those
in poverty which impedes on the safety of the children, no matter what
the government's excuse might be.
Would a hospital refuse to treat a child for injuries or some other
emergency health condition, simply because the parent refused or failed a
drug test? Certainly not. Hospitals can't even refuse treatment based
on someone's ability to pay for the services. Would an ambulance driver
refuse to take a child to the hospital after a car wreck, when it looked
like the parent was driving drunk? Would an ambulance even refuse to
render aid to the drunk parent themselves? Certainly not, because if
they did it would be a dereliction of their duty to render emergency
aid. And emergency aid is exactly what welfare is. Granted, it may seem
like some of these emergencies go on forever, but don't blame the
victims of a terminally flawed economic system for that. Which of course bring us to...
If we make them get drug tests, it will force them to get off their ass and get a job.
FALSE. For one simple reason. There are no jobs.
For every job opening in America, there are 4 people actively trying to
fill that position. Those numbers don't include people who can only find
part-time minimum-wage work, and must therefore turn to public
assistance funds to feed their family. Those numbers don't include those
who have run the length of their Unemployment Insurance benefit without
ever managing to find a job. Those numbers don't include those who
finally gave up, virtually hopeless, exasperated beyond the point that
the working stiff would ever care to imagine. You might be pissed off
about your job, how hard you work, all the taxes you have to pay. Try
not having a job for a while. You will envy those who have an April 15th
deadline. But in the meantime, we are going to take away from you the
Constitution, your liberty, and oh, by the way, your last shred of
dignity as well....
Yup, that's right, that schmuck has a job, and you don't. Your journey
to the darkside is now complete. You are now a slave, in every sense of
the word, and it's all your fault.
Which of course leads me to wonder why the Pentagon is mass producing flu vaccines, rather than a medical company or the CDC.
The Pentagon’s DARPA lab has announced a milestone, but it doesn’t
involve drones or death missiles. Scientists at the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency say they’ve produced 10 million doses of an
influenza vaccine in only one month’s time.
LGBTQ dating app faces hefty payout over HIV data
-
[image: Preview] US dating app Grindr has agreed to settle a UK lawsuit
alleging it shared users’ HIV status and other private information without
consent ...
Bullish is an Understatement. COPPER NOW!
-
The U.S. has faced significant challenges over the last few decades, from
globalization to political missteps. The narrative of decline culminated in
the 2...
Symbolic Pics of the Month 08/26
-
In this edition of SPOTM: Paris Jackson's troubling album art, the WNBA
losing its mind, and Lady Gaga launching a creepy biotech company. Also:
What in ...
This feed has moved and will be deleted soon. Please update your
subscription now.
-
The publisher is using a new address for their RSS feed. Please update your
feed reader to use this new URL:
*http://www.alternet.org/home/feed*
The Hemp Industry / Staying Positive
-
Air Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020
Doug Fine discussed the many amazing properties of hemp. Followed by Eldon
Taylor on staying positive in the COVID-19 era.
The Alzheimer’s Drug that Might Unlock Your Dreams
-
As excited as I get about the potentiality of psychedelic drugs, I get far
more amped about pushing the boundaries of dreams as I’m not sure there are
an...
DOJ Stumbles at Hearing on Detaining Immigrants
-
Criticizing an attorney for the government for arguing issues he never
raised in briefing, the First Circuit seemed likely at a hearing Wednesday
to u...
Mom Has Stacked Dinner Party Roster
-
GOLDEN, CO—Their eyes widening in amazement as the 43-year-old rattled off
the names of heavy hitter after heavy hitter, impressed members of the
Dreesh...
After shopping at a Wal-Mart store, David Eckert failed to make a complete stop at a stop-sign before he pulled into traffic to leave the plaza. He was stopped by police for the infraction. 
![[Image: drug-test-coaster.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkrx88kYtdvjJnlGIcUGokRWxq1pjOHsj7bk_U-mVed9orFUfpd32s29O-qIhcXDnqwNDEXTMveQl8kKgyIUVrQKns6Bbn7bzYgqNLxcPRb4axTJM8jFUKpOXLuMIzC-b6X3jo-k3TXc1W/s320/drug-test-coaster.jpg)
![[Image: mcdonalds-fail.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMiIWshNt7iZ3d-QWiPyRaoJTf79tvwuBiF4cXxBdzbpd9FXSSZgtr9OYf6HD4GLl0gMpb7Yj2_OC_OrZMXrnmuYVAJ11fjhTT3DZ4BCDIwEzYrNWLQ_PV_pcVRK41bj4oil6aGSE0Q5rW/s320/mcdonalds-fail.jpg)
![[Image: b99b4c34.jpg]](http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo27/superjackinthebox/Superjack%20archive/b99b4c34.jpg)
