Discussion:
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-17 18:41:54 UTC
Permalink
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_practices/taylor/bio.

Practice Guidelines for Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Please Make a Selection Table of Contents Standing Orders Conferences Removal Motion Practice TROs & Injunctions Class Actions Discovery Mediation Pretrial Settlement Trials Special Notes-Criminal Case Management Orders Biography
Biography
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A. from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957. Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.

She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.

She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges Association and Women Judges Association.
Vince
2006-08-17 19:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_practices/taylor/bio.
*Practice Guidelines for Judge Anna Diggs Taylorrwline.jpg*
*Biography *
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation
Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield
School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A.
from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957.
Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.
I presume you are pointing out her Yale degree in support of her
abilities?

Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-17 23:14:30 UTC
Permalink
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"

"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
saying it violated the U.S. Constitution," Reuters reports:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.

The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.

Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
was "rewarded" in 1979 with a judicial nomination. The paper adds:

Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------

The Justice Department has already appealed."

James Taranto

The Wall Street Journal
Pepperoni
2006-08-18 00:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"
"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------
The Justice Department has already appealed."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
The Hon Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is a graduate of Barnard College (BA
1954), Yale Law School (LLB 1957) and has served with the Office of
Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor.

Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant
Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit.

n 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be
appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman
Chief Judge for that circuit as well.

She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.

She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.

Moreover, locally, Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor is respected for her erudite
and eloquent ability to explain the rationale behind her decisions. If
you expect her decision to be easily overturned, be expectant of
disappointment as well.

Pepperoni
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 01:46:22 UTC
Permalink
On 8/17/06 7:37 PM, in article
Post by Pepperoni
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"
"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------
The Justice Department has already appealed."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
The Hon Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is a graduate of Barnard College (BA
1954), Yale Law School (LLB 1957) and has served with the Office of
Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor.
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant
Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit.
n 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be
appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman
Chief Judge for that circuit as well.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.
Moreover, locally, Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor is respected for her erudite
and eloquent ability to explain the rationale behind her decisions. If
you expect her decision to be easily overturned, be expectant of
disappointment as well.
Pepperoni
Judge Taylor is an elderly black woman who is an old-time Democratic
politician. Couple this with her opinion, which was unconvincing to me and
seemed well outside the mainstream of modern judicial thinking, I DO expect
the 6th Circuit to reverse her. The good thing about this dispute is that
we are going to know who is right bye and bye.

Grey Satterfield
D. Patterson
2006-08-18 01:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepperoni
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Carter Judge: Hear No Evil"
"A federal judge in Detroit on Thursday ordered the Bush administration to
halt the National Security Agency's program of domestic eavesdropping [sic],
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the controversial practice of warrantless
wiretapping known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" violated free
speech rights, protections against unreasonable searches and the
constitutional check on the power of the presidency.
The ruling marked a setback for the Bush administration, which had asked for
the lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union to be thrown out,
arguing that any court action on the case would jeopardize secrets in an
ongoing war on terrorism.
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
---------------------------------------------
The Justice Department has already appealed."
James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
The Hon Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is a graduate of Barnard College (BA
1954), Yale Law School (LLB 1957) and has served with the Office of
Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor.
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was
a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne
County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct
Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant
Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit.
n 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be
appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman
Chief Judge for that circuit as well.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community
Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness
and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges
Association and Women Judges Association.
Moreover, locally, Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor is respected for her erudite
and eloquent ability to explain the rationale behind her decisions. If
you expect her decision to be easily overturned, be expectant of
disappointment as well.
Pepperoni
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's
assumption that international telephone calls and other electronic
communications will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the
event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities is utterly
false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic
communications are always subject to interception by foreign
governments, commercial organizations, private persons, and terrorist
organizations. Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the
plaintiffs to claim that electronic surveillance of the same
communications which already subject to surveillance by others is
somehow going to deprive them of a confidentialty which did not exist
before the electronic surveillance by the U.S. Government.
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-18 02:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Good Points.

I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.

DSH
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it is
certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption
that international telephone calls and other electronic communications
will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the event the U.S.
Government is barred from such activities is utterly false and
ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic communications are always
subject to interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations,
private persons, and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is
no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by
the U.S. Government.
Vince
2006-08-18 03:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it is
certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's assumption
that international telephone calls and other electronic communications
will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the event the U.S.
Government is barred from such activities is utterly false and
ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic communications are always
subject to interception by foreign governments, commercial organizations,
private persons, and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is
no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic surveillance by
the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something

confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the right
is a prohibition of government searches

the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government

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.

as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case

From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations from
various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.

I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the Constitution
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not of the
Constitution.
Crap

read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.

"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""

yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer

the total god king autocrat, but I don't

neither did the Court in milligan

"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....

The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and even
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they should
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to NSA,
et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if there is
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order to
get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the American
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.


Vince
D. Patterson
2006-08-18 04:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes,
it is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and judge's
assumption that international telephone calls and other electronic
communications will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in
the event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities is
utterly false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and other electronic
communications are always subject to interception by foreign
governments, commercial organizations, private persons, and terrorist
organizations. Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the
plaintiffs to claim that electronic surveillance of the same
communications which already subject to surveillance by others is
somehow going to deprive them of a confidentialty which did not exist
before the electronic surveillance by the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the right
is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
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.
as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case
From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations from
various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.
I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the Constitution
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not of the
Constitution.
Crap
read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.
"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""
yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer
the total god king autocrat, but I don't
neither did the Court in milligan
"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....
The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and even
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they
should
Post by D. Spencer Hines
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to NSA,
et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if there is
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order to
get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the American
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Vince
You cannot go out on the public square and publish a broadside
displaying a communication between correspondents and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear.
Likewise, you cannot broadcast a communication between correspondents
into the public airwaves and the common carriers and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear when
they choose to intercept the signals on the public airwaves and common
carriers. Confidentiality and privacy cannot be claimed whenever you
publish or broadcast a communication to the public.
Vince
2006-08-18 04:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes,
it is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and
judge's assumption that international telephone calls and other
electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such
activities is utterly false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and
other electronic communications are always subject to interception
by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private persons,
and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is no
reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic
surveillance by the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the
right is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
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.
as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case
From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations
from various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.
I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the
Constitution
Post by D. Spencer Hines
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not
of the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Constitution.
Crap
read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.
"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""
yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer
the total god king autocrat, but I don't
neither did the Court in milligan
"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....
The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and
even
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they
should
Post by D. Spencer Hines
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to NSA,
et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if there is
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order
to get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the American
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Vince
You cannot go out on the public square and publish a broadside
displaying a communication between correspondents and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear.
not the issue
They are welcome to monitor my public talk but not to break into the
houses of the persons whose talk I report
Post by D. Patterson
Likewise, you cannot broadcast a communication between correspondents
into the public airwaves and the common carriers and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of the
work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear when
they choose to intercept the signals on the public airwaves and common
carriers. Confidentiality and privacy cannot be claimed whenever you
publish or broadcast a communication to the public.
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.


even if the content is already public

Vince
D. Patterson
2006-08-18 05:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by D. Patterson
Post by Vince
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Good Points.
I'm surprised Brannigan hasn't chimed in on this one yet.
DSH
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes,
it is certain to be overturned on appeal. The plaintiffs' and
judge's assumption that international telephone calls and other
electronic communications will be secure from interception and
eavesdropping in the event the U.S. Government is barred from such
activities is utterly false and ridiculously so. Telephonic and
other electronic communications are always subject to interception
by foreign governments, commercial organizations, private persons,
and terrorist organizations. Consequently, the there is no
reasonable basis for the plaintiffs to claim that electronic
surveillance of the same communications which already subject to
surveillance by others is somehow going to deprive them of a
confidentialty which did not exist before the electronic
surveillance by the U.S. Government.
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the
right is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
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.
as to yourself I disposed of your argument some time ago
using the same cases used by the judge in this case
From: Vince Brannigan - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 29 2005 9:18 pm
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Pogue Brannigan keeps reeling out long, off-the-wall quotations
from various
Post by D. Spencer Hines
statutes in an effort to discredit President Bush.
Brannigan stupidly and ignorantly fails to understand their
irrelevancy with
Post by D. Spencer Hines
respect to the President's National Security Powers, under the
Constitution,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
by virtue of his position as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.
he gets nothing by being chief executive except to take care that the
laws be faithfully enforced.
I realize that Brown shirt lite lovers like to think that Bush has the
same powers nd he is their Fuerher, but he doesn't .
Post by D. Spencer Hines
An American President's National Security Powers under the
Constitution
Post by D. Spencer Hines
trump these statutes, which are simply creatures of Congress, not
of the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Constitution.
Crap
read Youngstown sheet and tube or Ex parte milligan.
"They cannot justify on the mandate of the President; because he is
controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to
execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code
to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction.""
yes I know you love the idea of Der fuehrer
the total god king autocrat, but I don't
neither did the Court in milligan
"The proposition is this: that in a time of war the commander of an
armed force (if in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it,
and of which he is to judge), has the power, within the lines of his
military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and
subject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the
exercise of his lawful authority cannot be restrained, except by his
superior officer or the President of the United States.....
The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true,
republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty
regulated by law.....
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Courts have ruled in the President's favor in these matters -- and
even
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General of the United
States, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
told Congress and the American People any President, including
Clinton, has
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and will continue to exercise them.
Now, if the Democrats in Congress feel so strongly about this they
should
Post by D. Spencer Hines
try to introduce a bill in both Houses, calling for an IMMEDIATE
cessation
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of these practices by NSA and the President -- and the other relevant
Government Agencies -- with a threat to cut off all funding to
NSA, et. al.,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
and initiate Impeachment Proceedings against the President if
there is
Post by D. Spencer Hines
noncompliance ---- THEN we will REALLY see the feces hit the fan.
Republicans could introduce bills with similar import -- in order
to get the
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Democrats to take a stand, by voting their convictions -- smoking
them out
Post by D. Spencer Hines
of their holes with White Phosphorus rounds.
Republicans need to call the Democrats' bluff on this latest Democrat
Demagogic Gambit -- which, if successful, would only make the
American
Post by D. Spencer Hines
People LESS SECURE and protected in their lives and property from the
machinations of the Islamofascists.
Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of
law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if
this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the
dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers
had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been
false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the
world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short
or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued,
human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever
lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this,
and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had
fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the
safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not
one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary
disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Vince
You cannot go out on the public square and publish a broadside
displaying a communication between correspondents and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of
the work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear.
not the issue
They are welcome to monitor my public talk but not to break into the
houses of the persons whose talk I report
Post by D. Patterson
Likewise, you cannot broadcast a communication between correspondents
into the public airwaves and the common carriers and then protest the
government has no right to conduct surveillance from the contents of
the work you have already broadcast for all the public to see and hear
when they choose to intercept the signals on the public airwaves and
common carriers. Confidentiality and privacy cannot be claimed
whenever you publish or broadcast a communication to the public.
not the issue.
the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
even if the content is already public
Vince
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
miguel
2006-08-18 19:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Patterson
Thank you for demonstrating so eloquently why so many lawyers inside and
outside of government lack the commonsense to stand aside from oncoming
trains and are entirely too untrustworthy to govern military affairs. As
everyone who has ever had COMSEC training in the military services
knows, talking on the telephone is tantamount to publishing the
conversation on the inside pages of the New York Times, right alongside
their brief paragraphs acknowledging errors in past articles and
editorials. Anyone who imagines they have an expectation of privacy in a
telephone call is ignorant and/or a damned fool. Attempts to employ
legal fantasies and trickery in an effort to ignore and overcome such a
hard reality deserve to be dismissed with prejudice. Conducting
surveillance on communications transmitted in public view does not and
logically cannot constitute privacy, confidentiality, or unreasonable
search and seizure.
You are in error. If your argument were correct, in any case where a
governmental agency possesses technology capable of invading any private
space without actually setting foot in anybody's curtilage, then the
government could simply announce the existence of this technology and
instantly render all expectations of privacy unreasonable.

It doesn't work that way, homey.

miguel

Kurt Ullman
2006-08-18 13:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Mr Patterson's comment is simply silly. Rights against the US
government are not affected by whether some other government might or
might not do something
confidentiality is an effect of the amendment, not the right. the right
is a prohibition of government searches
the 4th amendment is a direct control on the US government
My understanding is that this in respect to calls coming from outside
the US, where the US has no prohibition against doing so, going to the
US. If I understand wiretapping law in the US, from a long time ago on
the periphery of some investigations, to monitor phone calls, the US
only has to get permission to monitor one phone. So, if we have legal
tap on Goomba 1, when Goomba 2 either calls G1 or receives a call from
G1, there is no need to get permission to listen in on G2's half of the
conversation.
Under that theory, if there is legal authority (or probably for
these discussions more appropriate no legal barrier) to the tap on
Out-of-Country Terrorist 1, then why is it any less legal to tap whoever
the calls goes to? If G2 can listened to legally because the original
tap is legal, why is this different?
miguel
2006-08-18 19:51:27 UTC
Permalink
D. Patterson wrote:

snip
Post by D. Patterson
The decision is so full of false assumptions and other major holes, it
is certain to be overturned on appeal.
Name these false assumptions and major holes.
Post by D. Patterson
The plaintiffs' and judge's
assumption that international telephone calls and other electronic
communications will be secure from interception and eavesdropping in the
event the U.S. Government is barred from such activities is utterly
false and ridiculously so.
Why do you assume either have made such an assumption? That possibility
is completely outside the court's analysis, and completely foreign to
any meaningful application of the requirements of FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Telephonic and other electronic
communications are always subject to interception by foreign
governments, commercial organizations, private persons, and terrorist
organizations.
That certainly may be so. However, it does not provide a legal excuse
for the Administration to ignore FISA.
Post by D. Patterson
Consequently, the there is no reasonable basis for the
plaintiffs to claim that electronic surveillance of the same
communications which already subject to surveillance by others is
somehow going to deprive them of a confidentialty which did not exist
before the electronic surveillance by the U.S. Government.
It's unnecessary for the plaintiffs to make any such claim.

miguel
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 01:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.

Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum
2006-08-18 11:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
Grey Satterfield
Do you think either the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court will rule
on it before the next election?
Grey Satterfield
2006-08-18 11:54:13 UTC
Permalink
On 8/18/06 6:02 AM, in article
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Grey Satterfield
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Last week the Detroit Free Press profiled Judge Taylor, noting that she "is
a liberal with Democratic roots" who campaigned for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and
Even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision
likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in
related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil
liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law
professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this
case is all about."
It's just as I said when I first identified who Judge Taylor is. The
chances of this opinion not being reversed are not high.
Grey Satterfield
Do you think either the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court will rule
on it before the next election?
The 6th Circuit may not rule on the matter before November but I think the
ruling's effectiveness will be stayed in the meantime. Judge Taylor's is
the first ruling to hold the foreign telephone intercepts unconstitutional
and a motion for a stay is pending before her. In the meantime her ruling
is NOT in effect so the intercepts go on. Because the ruling does seem
likely to be overturned on appeal I suspect that the 6th Circuit will stay
its effectiveness even if Judge Taylor won't.

Grey Satterfield
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-18 06:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause.

DSH
------------------------------------------------------------

"Criminal investigations. British law-enforcement officials clearly have a
more robust ability to investigate suspected terrorist activity than do U.S.
police agencies.

This is true in a range of areas. For example, traditionally there has been
much more direct cooperation between British intelligence and police
services; there was never the sort of "wall" between foreign intelligence
and law enforcement functions that the U.S. maintained before Sept. 11.

Similarly, British officials need not meet the very strict requirement of
"probable cause" to obtain warrants that U.S. investigative bodies must
satisfy under the Bill of Rights.

In Britain, a warrant can generally issue on a showing of "reasonable
suspicion."

DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY [both of whom are attorneys]
Monday, August 14, 2006

The Wall Street Journal
Julian Richards
2006-08-18 08:03:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:31:02 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause.
Similarly, British officials need not meet the very strict requirement of
"probable cause" to obtain warrants that U.S. investigative bodies must
satisfy under the Bill of Rights.
In Britain, a warrant can generally issue on a showing of "reasonable
suspicion."
It is about the balance between rights of the individual to be
protected from society against the responsibility of the individual to
the society.

In the USA the balance is in favour of the rights of the individual;
in the UK and much of the EU, those rights are weakened to allow the
state to provide additional protection to all citizens. There is no
right or wrong answer to this, a country has to determine where this
balance lies for itself. In the light of recent events, the USA may
have to move somewhat towards the UK model in certain ways.

When does free speech become unacceptable incitement?
When does the right to privacy become a danger to the common good?

It keeps lawyers in work, I suppose.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
D. Spencer Hines
2006-08-18 17:31:29 UTC
Permalink
REVIEW & OUTLOOK

"President Taylor
A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers."

Friday, August 18, 2006

"In our current era of polarized politics, it was probably inevitable that
some judge somewhere would strike down the National Security Agency's
warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional. The temptations to be hailed as
Civil Libertarian of the Year are just too great.

So we suppose a kind of congratulations are due to federal Judge Anna Diggs
Taylor, who won her 10 minutes of fame yesterday for declaring that
President Bush had taken upon himself "the inherent power to violate not
only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the
Constitution, itself."

Oh, and by the way, the Jimmy Carter appointee also avers that "there are no
hereditary Kings in America." In case you hadn't heard.

That's another reason the Angry-Left Democrats HATE George Walker Bush --
because his father was President. That hasn't happened since John Adams and
John Quincy Adams -- and both of them were one-termers. -- DSH

The 44-page decision, which concludes by issuing a permanent injunction
against the wiretapping program, will doubtless occasion much rejoicing
among the "imperial Presidency" crowd. That may have been part of her point,
as, early in the decision, Judge Taylor refers with apparent derision to
"the war on terror of this Administration."

We can at least be grateful that President Taylor's judgment won't be the
last on the matter. The Justice Department immediately announced it will
appeal and the injunction has been stayed for the moment.

But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the
surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up
U.S.-bound airliners. In this environment, monitoring the communications of
our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic
dissent. It is a matter of life and death.

So let's set aside the judge's Star Chamber rhetoric and try to examine her
argument, such as it is. Take the Fourth Amendment first. The "unreasonable
search and seizure" and warrant requirements of that amendment have their
roots in the 18th-century abuses of the British crown. Those abuses involved
the search and arrest of the King's political opponents under general and
often secret warrants.

Judge Taylor sees an analogy here, but she manages to forget or overlook
that no one is being denied his liberty and no evidence is being brought in
criminal proceedings based on what the NSA might learn through listening to
al Qaeda communications. The wiretapping program is an intelligence
operation, not a law-enforcement proceeding. Congress was duly informed, and
not a single specific domestic abuse of such a wiretap has yet been even
alleged, much less found.

As for the First Amendment, Judge Taylor asserts that the plaintiffs -- a
group that includes the ACLU and assorted academics, lawyers and journalists
who believe their conversations may have been tapped but almost surely
weren't -- had their free-speech rights violated because al Qaeda types are
now afraid to speak to them on the phone.

But the wiretapping program is not preventing anyone from speaking on the
phone. Quite the opposite -- if the terrorists stopped talking on the phone,
there would be nothing to wiretap. Perhaps the plaintiffs should have sued
the New York Times, as it was that paper's disclosure of the program that
created the "chill" on "free speech" that Judge Taylor laments.

The real nub of this dispute is the Constitution's idea of "inherent
powers," although those two pages of her decision are mostly devoted to
pouring scorn on the very concept. But jurists of far greater distinction
than Judge Taylor have recognized that the Constitution vests the bulk of
war-making power with the President. It did so, as the Founders explained in
the Federalist Papers, for reasons of energy, dispatch, secrecy and
accountability.

Before yesterday, no American court had ever ruled that the President lacked
the Constitutional right to conduct such wiretaps.

President Carter signed the 1978 FISA statute that established the special
court to approve domestic wiretaps even as his Administration declared it
was not ceding any Constitutional power.

BINGO! -- DSH

And in the 2002 decision In Re: Sealed Case, the very panel of appellate
judges that hears FISA appeals noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v.
Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the
issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct
warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

We couldn't find Judge Taylor's attempt to grapple with those precedents,
perhaps because they'd have interfered with the lilt of her purple prose.

ZAAAAAAPPPP! -- DSH

Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their
war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered.

Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras -- and no one
can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result."

The Wall Street Journal
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct! And she really doesn't give a damn. She simply wants to be
crowned, feted and lauded as Civil Libertarian of the Year and the National
Security of the American People be damned.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...