The Hickory Hound: The attack on our Liberty

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

The attack on our Liberty

The Reaffirmation of Independence of the United States of America

(Click the link above)

10 comments:

Anonymous said...: An interesting rant, but I think that he's got a lot of his facts mixed up, especially with regard to what is contained in the Declaration of Independence and what is in the Constitution / Bill of Rights.

Until he went off on the anti-Obama tirade near the end, I honestly thought he was talking about Geo. W. Bush and the Republicans actions over the past decades -- to my mind, THEY are the ones who have done more to take away our liberties (through the Patriot Act, for example) and turn our economy over to the debtmongers and banking interests through the award of privileges to those who contribute to their campaigns. This is a course of action I don't see changing significantly if the Tea Party advocates significantly gain power, either.

Don't misunderstand -- many of the Democratic officeholders or candidates would or have done things that accomplish similar results. There is more than enough culpability to go around.

Many of the problems outlined are very real -- the disagreement comes from determining what solution is appropriate.

If he wanted to retain credibility (at least with me although that's probably not worth much to him, I understand), he should have not only talked about President Obama's actions, but also addressed the Republican / Tea Party's refusal to cooperate, to try to meet to forge any type of compromise, and to realistically address the problems our country faces, not to mention the attempts by many of them and the upcoming candidates to establish what amounts to a Christian Theocracy as the basis for our government. And while we're going after the "media", let's make sure that we include the conservative pundits and networks in the mix, too. I tend to watch all of them a bit and see more than enough nonsense regardless of which particular station one is watching.

As it is, my final opinion was that he was just another Fox News watcher who is frothing at the mouth with his rhetoric.; July 5, 2011 at 9:07 AM
James Thomas Shell said...: It is all of them (the leaders of the political parties)and until people look towards individual politicians and move away from World Wrestling Entertainment politics,then they will continue to be groped in airports or wrongly detained by Highway Patrolman when they have done nothing wrong. Or have stimulus dollars and banking bailout dollars go to cronies and not to help people with underwater mortgages or those who can't find a job. The things that happened during the revolutionary war are happening today.

He rants about both Obama and Bush. People just take offense when they attack their guy. They are taken aback, because they are Kool-aid sippers and they love being lied to. The Republican establishment has been pushing Rick Perry and Alex Jones has been standing against him and exposing what he has done in Texas. He doesn't just go against one party.

I know that most people get their programming off of the Television and take it all for granted as the gospel. It solidly shapes their opinion. Good for them. When the broadcasters tell them to go jump off a 10 story building, it is my sincere hope that everyone of those Kool-aid sipping viewers will follow through with their trust of the people who have led us down this path of self-destruction. Don't think just do it.

Below is a story that demonstrates how some public officials are on Power Trips such as Alex Jones describes in his rant:

Raleigh attorney alleges trooper misconduct in letter to Perdue; July 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Silence DoGood said...: Subjective complacency. Things always seem to be a bit more palatable when you favor the viewpoint. What our good friend in the video fails to acknowledge is, there is always a call for a Constitutional Convention active in many State Legislatures around the country. It seems the Federal Government is at odds with various State Governments for a myriad of reasons, probably because of the language of the 10th Amendment. Does that mean that there will be a majority of States that will some day repeal the Constitution and do the entire thing over? That possibility always exists and is really nothing new.

I did, however, conduct a rather extensive search for calls to repeal the Bill of Rights and The US Constitution this morning. The only references I could find for recent repeal or amendment of the Bill of Rights (within the past 8 weeks) was limited to a Republican leadership call for partial repeal of the 14th Amendment; the citizenship clause. An amendment to repeal the Healthcare Reform Act, otherwise ubiquitously known as “Obamacare.” And repeal of the 17th Amendment which dictates that Senators be elected by the people, not appointed by the legislatures of each of the States, prefaced on the argument that this will somehow limit the size of Government and return power to the people. Historically, the joint Congresses of the United States have called for amending the Constitution a number of times, as you can see by the sessions, years, and numbers of amendments called for by each session. 106th (1999 only): 60; 105th (1997-98): 103; 104th (1995-96): 158; 103rd (1993-94): 156; 102nd (1991-92): 165; 101st (1989-90): 214

In January 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested Congressional support for a program of military and economic cooperation with nations in the general area of the Middle East. “As one component of this military and economic assistance program, President Eisenhower sought authority to employ the, armed forces of the United States to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid, against overt armed aggression from any nation….” “The President emphasized that such authority would not be utilized by him, except at the desire of the nation attacked.” The Congress passed 22 U.S.C. §§ 1961-65. “The resolution has not been formally repealed.”

With regard to the Trooper. Arrests are based on probable cause. That is a standard that falls well below the reasonable doubt standard necessary to convict. If the good lady’s attorney husband was up on his criminal law and procedure, he could have answered all of the questions he posed to the Governor and other Cabinet and Department heads. But he chose instead to incite public outcry based on his open-ended insidious questions. As an attorney, he knew exactly why his wife was carried to the Magistrate’s Office after the Intoxilyzer tests. It’s called a 1st Appearance. Those are made for the determination of cause for the arrest. Since she blew 0.0 twice, no probable cause exists and she was turned loose; that’s called criminal procedure and if you want to dip into Constitutional law, due process. And he knew why she got two tests. NC law provides for 2 tests to be administered and the person arrested gets the lower of the two tests. The trooper believed he had cause to arrest based on what he thought was alcohol emanating from the person of the driver. She did refuse his request for a screening test. All officers do not carry portable screening devices or are issued them; budget constraints you know. And it simply is not heard of when a person arrested is transported in a police vehicle without being restrained in handcuffs, at a minimum.; July 5, 2011 at 11:50 AM
James Thomas Shell said...: DoGood, did you read the PDF of the letter to the Governor or watch the video at the link. I think it will blow your mind. Don't just accept that the officer was doing his duty. The officer showed signs of being completely unprofessional and out of control.

I understand that police officers can take someone in for probable cause and that is not the argument. The lady stated that she had not had anything to drink and he said she had a strong odor of alcohol and said some very derogatory things to this woman. That is not professional.

Then he takes her to Castle hayne, when he tells the husband that he is taking her to downtown Wilmington. He won't call the magistrate to Wrightsville Beach (says it will take all night). Has a scheme that gets the husband pulled over by a fellow officer. I mean this is a very bad episode.

Then they put this woman with the people in the drunk tank at Castle Hayne. Then the Magistrate is reading the woman the riot act based on what the HP officer has told the woman.

The lady and her husband didn';t go to the press. The press came to them after the letter was leaked. the husband said that he understands that their has to be an investigation.

All of this DWI madness that we have going on in this state has given unfettered power to policing authorities. They still are responsible, in my estimation, to be professional and unbiased arbiters of justice. There is zero excuse for what was displayed in this case.

Officers like this make other officers jobs harder.; July 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM
James Thomas Shell said...: Oh yeah and the strong odor of alcohol and 2 readings at Wrightsville Beach Police station showed a reading of .000. Now how is that a strong odor of alcohol?

And the comments about her fancy car and placing the handcuffs on her to where they make marks and after the .000 reading keeping her in handcuffs at the WB station and on the transport to Castle Hayne.

I beg you to read the PDF at least and the video from WRAL of the couple is very believable. There was nothing ambiguous about this.

What if this was your wife?; July 5, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Larry J. said...: Hmmm. Not sure how the comment thread went from the video over to the incident with the trooper. My comment relates back to the original video -- before seeing it, I posted my own thoughts on the condition of our country, and I'd welcome dialogue at

http://cornerat8th.blogspot.com/2011/07/independence-day-2011.html; July 6, 2011 at 7:21 AM
Silence DoGood said...: No, I hadn’t previously read the letter, so as asked, I read it. Hoyte Tessener is certainly his wife’s advocate. However, I really didn’t take a stand in my first response, I only intended to elucidate the major procedural questions that Attorney Tessener took exception to, which, he obviously knew or should have known the answers to as a member of the bar. This indicates to me that the purpose of his treatise is not justice, but revenge. I would also like to correct an erroneous presumption on my part in my first post concerning an alco-sensor not being available; it was.

I do not presume to either confirm or deny the veracity of what was written; I wasn’t there. Neither was Attorney Tessener for a majority of the time. Therefore, he’s relying upon what the arrestee is telling him. All of facts alleged are heresay, except for what Attorney Tessener himself asserts to having seen or heard. The rest of what is asserted is not supported by direct evidence, testimony, or corroborated by witnesses. None of what is presented is done so under oath and the letter is certainly not a deposition. The letter begins by affirming that the writer not only has met the Governor, but likewise has a long affiliation with the Attorney General and the Lieutenant Governor. He is relying upon those relationships to stand good for his assertions of fact concerning someone he has a close personal relationship with that may be clouding his objectivity. And should all of that fail, he sent the letter to enough people to 1) ensure that it would make its way into the mainstream media to be tried in the court of public opinion with the goal plainly stated toward the end; Attorney Tessener wants the Trooper fired, and 2) he avoids defamation liability since he didn't publicly release the document. The final analysis of all this however is, Attorney Tessener gets his say, uses enough adjectives to strip a thesaurus bare, and has done so in a manner to exact revenge on someone who had the audacity to arrest his wife, which was both embarrassing and humiliating. Whether Trooper Wyrick was right or wrong now is inconsequential. Christ himself could testify on his behalf if he is indeed blameless, and it would be to no avail. The presumption of innocence has been subverted and we will never hear the rebuttal of what happened. Trooper Wyrick may indeed be complicit. I’ve a feeling that what the arrestee said to him during the stop weighed as much in her arrest as the odor of alcohol about her person.

Insofar as the Magistrate issue is concerned. Quite often Judge Brady modifies the Magistrate schedules here based on two offices in this county, closing one and routing traffic to the other; that’s understandable. Sometimes one office is backed up and incoming traffic is routed to the other office; again understandable. It used to be common practice for the on-duty Magistrate to even go home at night when it wasn’t busy. Try getting that Magistrate back in to the office in a timely manner when they’d left. Yes, it’s a State office, yes, it’s supposed to be staffed during posted hours. That’s just the way things are.

As far as it being my wife. If she is dumb enough to refuse an alco-sensor test knowing she is not drinking, then she can march right through the process just like the arrestee. Standing beside the roadway in the glow of blue lights is neither the time nor the place to do your impersonation of Clarence Darrow or assert your legal prowess when the other person holds your liberty in the pen they carry.

Other general observations are: you can blow .00 and have an odor of alcohol on your person. Every officer who has worked the street knows there are two pat answers to the question, “Have you been drinking tonight?” Those answers are typically, “Nooo Ossifffer.” And “2 beers.” Judging by the BAC’s I’ve heard reported on the basis of “2 beers”, those beers must have been in half-gallon containers.; July 6, 2011 at 1:06 PM
Silence DoGood said...: @Larry J...might have been my fault, I tend to go off on tangents at times.; July 6, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Larry J. said...: I was afraid that I'd overlooked something and got into the wrong message thread. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Having practiced law for almost 27 years (as both prosecution and defense, as well as being counsel for a number of police departments) I can tell you that I would -- under NO circumstances -- blow into the machine while standing alongside the road if I were alone in the car. It's a major hassle and there are consequences, but the opportunity for abuse by a single officer standing alone is too great.

And if I had not been drinking or using anything else, I would insist that blood be drawn at the police station.; July 7, 2011 at 8:26 AM
Silence DoGood said...: Sound advice and I certainly understand the position from which it is proffered, but let me add some facts to help clarify my analysis and conclusions. Alco-sensors are screening devices. Admissibility of a positive or negative result, not the actual alcohol concentration, is admissible (NCGS 20-16.3) I'm sure that is because of the tolerance levels allowed on those devices. Time wise, you're looking at about 20-30 seconds from the time the device comes of the case to the result.

The other fact is, the person charged is requested to submit to the test or tests for alcohol concentration "...at the direction of the charging officer." And if the person refuses, NCGS 20-139.1 allows the officer to take, on probable cause and without a court order, blood or urine to determine the concentration of impairing substance.

But the screening devices are just that, an indicator of impairment. Sobriety testing and officer observations of driving prior to arrest are still imperative to the case and demonstrable of the impairment effects of alcohol on mental acquity and physical ability. Neither of those were present in the fact pattern.

So given the average person who metabolizes alcohol at the rate of one ounce per hour, it is possible to consume just that much each hour and maintain a BAC of .00.

So given the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, I would maintain it was still to her benefit to have taken the alco-sensor test based in hindsight on the results of the Intoxilyzer and been on her merry way. If, in fact, her assertion to being alcohol free was truthful. And if it wasn't, there still was not enough evidence to convict, or even sustain the charge, in my opinion, in light of the facts presented.; July 7, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)