Legal Matters

The Patriot Act

Provision 213

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

• (1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
• (2) by adding at the end the following:
  • (b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
• (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
• (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
• (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

Sneak-and-Peek searches

Extend the authority of FISA searches to any criminal search. This allows for secret searches of one's home and property without prior notice.

Much of the backlash against the USA PATRIOT Act has been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches. Critics[1] argue that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided."

In special cases covered by FISA (incorporated in the USA PATRIOT Act), the warrants may come from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) instead of a common Federal or State Court. FISC warrants are not public record and therefore are not required to be released. Other warrants must be released, especially to the person under investigation.

A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search. The judge providing the warrant may allow a delay in notification when there is risk of:

• endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
• flight from prosecution;
• destruction of or tampering with evidence;
• intimidation of potential witnesses; or
• otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.

The delays are on average 7 days, but have been as long as 90 days. [2] Section 213, which federal agencies report they have used 155 times since 2001, does not expire later this year like other Patriot Act provisions.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that the term "serious jeopardy" is too broad "and must be narrowly curtailed."[3]

See also: [United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]

Provision 412

[Authorizes the Attorney General authority to order a brief detention of aliens without any prior showing or court ruling that the person is dangerous.] Section 412, United States Code, is amended - alien material is further defined as deceased bodies and organic materials involved in acts of terroism.

SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.

• (a) IN GENERAL- The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 236 the following:

MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-

• (1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
• (2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien or alien material until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien or alien material may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
• (3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
  • (A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
  • (B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
  • (C) is declared deceased, upon declaration all organic material becomes materials in accordance with 213. Materials remain subject to 213 until the Attorney General determines that the material is no longer an threat as defined by section 412 and 213. If the alien material is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
• (4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority.
• (5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien or alien material detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien. Alien material is subject to research and development by requisition on goverment agencies or government contract.
• (6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1),(2),(3) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.
• (7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General shall review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that the certification should be revoked, the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that request.
  • (b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-
• (1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
• (2) APPLICATION-
  • (A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with--
    • (i) the Supreme Court;
    • (ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;
    • (iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or
    • (iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it.
  • (B) APPLICATION TRANSFER- Section 2241(b) of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus described in subparagraph (A).
• (3) APPEALS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals.
• (4) RULE OF DECISION- The law applied by the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be regarded as the rule of decision in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1).
  • (a) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any other provision of this Act.'.
  • (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 236 the following:

Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus; judicial review.'.

• • (c) REPORTS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on--
• (1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (a);
• (2) the grounds for such certifications;
• (3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
• (4) the length of the detention for each alien so certified; and
• (5) the number of aliens so certified who--
  • (A) were granted any form of relief from removal;
  • (B) were removed;
  • (C) the Attorney General has determined are no longer aliens who may be so certified; or
  • (D) were released from detention,
  • (E) were declared alien material subject to 213.

State vs. Reagan

'EXCERPT' Maryland State vs. Thomas Reagan, January 28th 2005: Report one Tom Reagan (Survivor #216) caused the disintigration of every vehicle within a 9 mile radius of the town of Oakland, MD. Oakland, MD wikipedia

"Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I hold in my hand a very important document that is highly damaging to the "survivor's" case in this matter. I hold here a document signed by ten of the top leading geneticists in the world after genetic tissue was handed over to them from the "survivors" following their initial recovery. I would like to read a portion of this now for you all...

From Dr. Peter Beighton: "The genetic makeup of these subjects, I say subjects because their DNA no longer even remotely resembles human DNA, is unlike anything I have ever seen. If I were given this DNA without knowledge of the source of it I would not even assume that they were human."

Webster's dictionary states the definition of human as:

• Human : Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-

Function: adjective

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans <the vulnerability of the human body> <human chorionic gonadotropin> <human growth hormone> b : primarily or usually harbored by, affecting, or attacking humans <human appendicitis> <the common human flea>

The "survivors" show major non-human charictaristics, their bodies are not vulnerable to the same things as humans as already demonstrated.

3 : consisting of members of the family Hominidae : HOMINID —hu•man•ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun

And the definition of Hominidae is...

• hom•i•nid : Pronunciation: 'häm-&-n&d, -"nid Function: noun

any bipedal primate mammal of the family Hominidae —hominid adjective

Some of these poor beings are not even mammals anymore... Therefore we state that these people are not in fact humans, and as such are not privvy to the basic human rights and also have no right to challenge the wisdom of the united states govornment."

Report Bibliography: A Mutation in the Variable Repeat Region of the Gene - Lindsay Gleghorn, Rajkumar Ramesar, and Gillian Wallis

State vs. Reagan - Additional Details

Homicide and the Legal System

Homicide is the killing of another human being by one or more others. In contrast, suicide is the self killing of a human being. Legally homicide is classified as either justifiable (A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called justifiable homicide in some cases. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past would generally not be considered justifiable, although in some cases such a crime is classed as being justifiable due to the impossibility of finding a jury who would convict under the case's circumstances.) homicide which is not a crime, or the following crimes:

• murder: In law, murder is the crime of a human being causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In most countries it is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law. Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. A killing may not be legally classified as murder, but still morally considered by some as a murder. For example, critics claim that the death penalty morally counts as a murder.
• manslaughter: Manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide, is a kind of homicide wherein a person causes the death of another through negligence or recklessness (not recognized in Australia) or where a person intentionally kills another but is not liable for murder because he is able to avail himself of a defense, such as insanity or diminished capacity.
  • voluntary manslaughter: Voluntary manslaughter requires intent, but is mitigated by the fact that the killer was subjected to adequate provocation to drive an ordinary person to kill. Instances of adequate provocation may include things such as unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of their lover, or witnessing an attack against one's child.
  • involuntary manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter (which includes negligent manslaughter) is the crime that results from a death that occurs despite a lack of intent to kill. British and American criminal law differentiates between various crimes based on mens rea (criminal intent), and involuntary manslaughter is generally associated with a level of negligent mens rea. While specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances. Recklessness is defined as a wanton disregard for the dangers of a particular situation.
  • negligent homicide (in some jurisdictions): Negligent homicide is a charge brought against persons, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die. This offense mostly concerns itself with the death of small infants or children, the handicapped, or the elderly. An example of such a case is when an elderly person is allowed to accumulate bedsores, as they are not helped out of a couch or bed for a prolonged period of time and die as a result of necrotic tissue.
  • excusable homicide & justifiable homicide: A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called justifiable homicide in some cases. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past would generally not be considered justifiable, although in some cases such a crime is classed as being justifiable due to the impossibility of finding a jury who would convict under the case's circumstances. In cases of self-defense, there is generally a duty for the defendant to retreat if possible to do so (except from one's home or place of business), or it is not justifiable (in the state of Louisiana, there is no duty to retreat). Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right. Justifiable homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal until the evidence warrants a change, as justifiable homicide is one of the most common defenses for homicides both justified and criminal. Justifiable homicide is a legal grey area, and there is no real legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable. The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the victim was clearly likely to kill a third person if the defendant did not kill them.
• infanticide: Infanticide is the practice of intentionally causing the death of an infant of a given species, by members of the same species. In many past societies certain forms of infanticide were considered proper, whereas in most modern societies the practice is considered immoral and criminal (but see abortion). Nonetheless, it still takes place, in the West usually because of the mother's mental illness and in some poor countries because of tacit societal acceptance.

Defenses against homicide, where the identity of the killer is not in dispute, include insanity and self-defense. Defense of property is not per se a defense against homicide, although a homicide where self-defense became necessary as a result of undertaking defense of property may be justifiable homicide.

Reference: Crimes Defined on Wikipedia

---

The AMERICAN GODS