Judge subpoenas University for records on anti-war protestors

[shanek]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7902617.htm

In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered Drake University to turn over records about a gathering of antiwar activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake, subpoenas were served last week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.

Federal prosecutors refused to comment on the subpoenas.

''The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority,'' guild president Michael Ayers said in a statement.

Those served subpoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an antiwar activist who visited Iraq in 2002.

They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent.

They testify on Tuesday. This should be one to keep an eye on.

[shanek]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110796,00.html

Santa Cruz, Calif., police pulled over a car with tinted windows — a no-no in California — last September, reports the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Inside they found two men and 18 ounces of "Purple Haze" brand marijuana worth about $3,000.

Leo Beus, 47, and his friend, Jon Balesteri, 54, were charged with transporting marijuana with intent to sell, but after they said they'd bought the weed at the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Club — and produced medical prescriptions to prove it — the charges were eventually dropped.

Superior Court Judge Art Danner (search) on Wednesday ordered that since the marijuana, which had been seized as evidence, was entirely legal, the police had to return it to Beus and Balestri.

Of course, in this country, the police shouldn't even be taking people in for having marijuana in the first place, but one step at a time, I guess. Another good thing is that they didn't keep the marijuana as "asset forfeiture" as has been done often in the past.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the Feds will come in and prosecute them anyway, as they did with Ed Rosenthal.

[Skeptical Greg]

............Inside they found two men and 18 ounces of "Purple Haze" brand marijuana]worth about $3,000............

........ but after they said they'd bought the weed at the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Club — and produced medical prescriptions to prove it ..................




Hmmmm.... No cheapo generic ' medicinal ' MJ for these guys..

[shanek]

Sorry; that second post was supposed to be a different thread.

[Chad Noles]

:cool: Like Wow man,I thought my computer had deja vu or something.Far Out!Uhh ...........oh man.I forgot what I was gonna say..........:D

[scribble]

McCarthy's stiff has a stiffy right now, I just know it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110796,00.html





Of course, in this country, the police shouldn't even be taking people in for having marijuana in the first place, but one step at a time, I guess. Another good thing is that they didn't keep the marijuana as "asset forfeiture" as has been done often in the past.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the Feds will come in and prosecute them anyway, as they did with Ed Rosenthal.

Well, if that is the law, then they certainly should.

It seems that the coppers and the lawers take a lot of crap for laws that are created by our pols. If you have a problem, place the blame exactly where it belongs.

(mutter) God damned damn polititions damn 'em to hell, damnit (/mutter)

[Brown]

Here's one story (http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/23473647.html) from the Des Moines Register (Des Moines is the home of Drake University) and here (http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/23473646.html) is another.

[subgenius]

Thank you Mr. Shanek.
You must be some kind of traitor for trying to keep an eye on abuses by our glorious government. Do you think power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, well even more, or something?
Exactly why don't you think they have our best interests at heart, and why we shouldn't submit to everything they want to do?
Why? Don't you value our security?
You and all of your ilk should be dealt with.

[Ladewig]

Federal officials have refused to say why they want information about the conference, the legal group that hosted it, and four Des Moines-area peace activists involved.

WTF? They won't announce the charges?

Fourth Amendment.
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.

Sixth Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, [snip] and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

I love my country's Constitution, it's my country's government I can't stand.

[crimresearch]

That individual rights stuff went out with the notion of letting the judicial branch administer sentencing.

Paul Nunis

[The Fool]

Originally posted by crimresearch
That individual rights stuff went out with the notion of letting the judicial branch administer sentencing.

Paul Nunis
who should?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool

who should?
I think he's referring to mandatory minimum sentences. In other words, the judicial branch no longer has leeway in sentencing in many cases, the sentences are mandated by Congress.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Well, if that is the law, then they certainly should.

Except that it isn't. The Constitution gives them no authority whatsoever to do that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool

who should?

Juries.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Juries.
Will they be required to study law before they have to tackle the problems of precedence and maintaining the basic principle of the punishment fitting the crime? Will they be required to study community expectations? Why do you think being a judge is a full time job? This is not just reasonable doubt you are asking them to decide but a complex range of factors required for consistant and just sentencing..

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat

I think he's referring to mandatory minimum sentences. In other words, the judicial branch no longer has leeway in sentencing in many cases, the sentences are mandated by Congress.
yes, thats what I thought....I can never understand why people want to foist a tragedy like that on thier own society...

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


Except that it isn't. The Constitution gives them no authority whatsoever to do that.

Enormous difference between that and what the law is. If is not constitutional fine, until then it is your opinion that it is not legal just as it is theirs that it is.

[Brown]

Update: the subpoenas have been dropped and the gag orders lifted. Story here (http://www.theiowachannel.com/education/2833197/detail.html) and here (http://miva.dmregister.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?news/live/display.mv+direction=showstory&showrec=5).

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool

Will they be required to study law before they have to tackle the problems of precedence and maintaining the basic principle of the punishment fitting the crime? Will they be required to study community expectations?

No, nor should they. They are, for the sake of the proceedings, the people. And you're supposed to take your case to the people and let the people decide. Our founders never intended for such things to be decided by the government.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Enormous difference between that and what the law is.

Um, no, there isn't. The Constitution IS the law. It is the SUPREME law of the land. If the Constitution says one thing, and a law says otherwise, the Constitution wins. Anything else only results in political anarchy, which is practically what we have now.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Brown
Update: the subpoenas have been dropped and the gag orders lifted. Story here (http://www.theiowachannel.com/education/2833197/detail.html) and here (http://miva.dmregister.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?news/live/display.mv+direction=showstory&showrec=5).

Great news! I'm kind of worried about the reason given: that the area they were in was a "free speech zone." And here I thought all of America was supposed to be a "free speech zone"! But regardless, it does show that vigilance can and does result in victory.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


No, nor should they. They are, for the sake of the proceedings, the people. And you're supposed to take your case to the people and let the people decide. Our founders never intended for such things to be decided by the government.
In Australia the government and the Judiciary are independent under the westminster principle of separation of powers. Is it not the same in america, I don't undertand how a judge deciding something is the "government" deciding something.

[aerocontrols]

More revelations (http://volokh.com/2004_02_22_volokh_archive.html#107766680574945284) about the Drake subpoenas.