29-01-2010, 03:39 AM
Forgive my commentary (in red) but when I saw this I felt like I did when I first learned about how the income tax was enacted...
Judge flip-flops on Census finding
[size=12]Strikes down own earlier challenge to federal snooping
[/SIZE]By Sarah Foster
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
In a stunning reversal of her earlier decision, a federal judge has dismissed a case that would have prevented the federal government from taking criminal action against those who refuse to answer questions demanded by the U.S. Census Bureau, beyond what is required by the U.S. Constitution.
When judges have "stunning reversals" you have to wonder who got to them.
Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, wrote in a 35-page statement, "The Court finds that there is no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional."
As WorldNetDaily reported in March, five Houston, Texas, residents had filed a lawsuit in federal district court. The basic question the suit addressed was: What kind of information may the United States government demand of its citizens and compel them to provide under threat of criminal penalties should they not do so?
The five -- Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, Nouhad Bassila, George Breckenridge and William Jeffrey Van Fleet -- are American citizens.
"At theheart of this claim," the plaintiffs claimed in their suit, is the threat to prosecute as criminals -- with stiff fines and possible imprisonment -- those persons who refuse to answer the Census Bureau's questions.
There are "virtually no limits to the intrusiveness of census questions propounded by the government," they noted. The penalty for non-compliance is up to $100 for each question not answered. A false answer can cost up to $500.
Judge Harmon appeared to agree with the plaintiffs when on March 25 she granted attorney Mark Brewer, of the Houston-based firm of Brewer and Pritchard, a temporary restraining order against the Census Bureau.
Speaking from the bench, the judge ruled that the bureau did not have an automatic right to ask questions felt to be personal or intrusive and that it cannot threaten or prosecute citizens who refuse to answer such questions.
"Far-reaching" is how Brewer described that first ruling.
"For the moment, this will prevent prosecution against any American who chooses not to answer questions other than the number of people living at their address -- that's all that's required by the Constitution," he said.
It was expected the case would go to a three-judge panel, but the Fifth Circuit denied that request. It fell on Harmon to issue a final summary judgment either for the plaintiffs or the Census Bureau.
Rather than expand or restate her earlier decision, the judge sided with the bureau over issues the plaintiffs raised -- about privacy, the possibility that federal agents might use collected information (particularly that dealing with race and ethnic background) to engage in illegal activities against citizens, and that the penalties for refusing or neglecting to answer the questions are particularly harsh.
What happened here???
Specifically, the plaintiffs had argued that the questions asked in both the eight-question "short form" or the 53-question "long form" go far beyond what is required by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. There, Congress is directed to conduct a count every 10 years of the number of people throughout the country for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
That's true, the judge ruled, but "... from the first census taken in 1790, the Congress has never performed a mere headcount. It has always included additional data points, such as race, sex, and age of the persons counted."
She observed that decades before the turn of the 20th century, the census had become a process for collecting statistical data the government thought necessary to function.
[size=12]"This [the Constitution] does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the Constitution,"
[/SIZE]
But does it allow the Census Bureau to punish citizens for not complying with it's additional forays? NO!
Despite assurances to the contrary, plaintiffs Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, and Nouhad Bassila -- all naturalized citizens -- are particularly concerned that information about their origins and ethnicity could at some point be used against them. They argued that census data of this type was used during World War II to identify Americans with Japanese ancestry who were placed in internment camps for the duration of the war.
Harmon essentially agreed with the plaintiffs.
Then why in Hell did she rule on the side of the Census Bureau?
The internment represented, in her words, "a startling example of how census data, collected for proper purposes, has been illegally used by the government for improper purposes." She even drew upon Filegate as an example of misconduct by government officials having access to confidential files. Having gone that far, however, she tossed the problem to Congress to make the necessary corrections.
"Recent non-World Wide Web incidents made this fact tangible, one involving hundreds of FBI files that were sent to low-level White House functionaries who had no need to know, and others involving confidential government personnel file information on controversial government employees, or would-be employees, sent to the media," the judge stated in a footnote.
"The plaintiffs thus cannot be faulted for questioning whether the census data, so carefully and anonymously compiled, will not be misused by the government. The horrors of the 20th century do not allow one comfortably to accept the notion that the Japanese-American experience during the Second World War was an isolated incident in the history of the United States.
We all can envision other ethnic groups who could be treated in a similar fashion given the 'proper' emergency. Nevertheless, a solution to this problem is one properly addressed by Congress, not by a court dealing with a purely hypothetical situation," she said.
WTF not? She passed the frickin' buck.
William Jeffrey Van Fleet is the plaintiff who has the most to lose in refusing to answer. Van Fleet is the only one of the five who received the long form, which has 53 questions, most of them intensely personal. Additionally, each member of a long form recipient's household is assigned an additional 33 questions. As head of a family of four, Van Fleet is expected to answer 152 questions -- each with its own separate penalty for non-response.
If he chooses not to answer, he faces a potential fine of as much as $15,200. Had he received the short form of eight questions, his fine would not exceed $300.
He is a hero.
Van Fleet argued that this subjected him to an "egregiously unequal" risk of prosecution in violation of his equal protection and due-process rights, and his rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In the words of the court, "He is required to disclose information about his medical history and condition, his ancestry and ethnic background, his income, his work habits, including how long it takes him to drive to work, and detailed information about his home, including the number of bedrooms, the nature of his plumbing, whether he owns or rents, even whether he pays his rent in cash."
Said Harmon, "Questions about the medical conditions of the members of Van Fleet's household would, in other contexts be considered private, but Census 2000 is not the first census to ask such questions." Far from it. "Asking questions well beyond the constitutionally mandated headcount is far from a novel idea of 20th century big-government bureaucrats," she said.
This makes no sense. You sold out. Who got to you? I want to know!
Mark Brewer expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that in his view, the judge didn't come to grips with certain key points.
"The court neglected two things," he said. "One is the issue of privacy. It's not private when I am forced to tell the government particularly intimate details of my life. That argument was really ignored by the court.
"Furthermore, the court failed to address the various due-process, equal-protection, anti-discrimination claims that I raised, and instead relied on the fact that historically, it's always been done that way before. But that doesn't make it right, and, more importantly, it ignores the fact that the portion of Article I dealing with the census was specifically changed by constitutional Amendment XIV, and was also impacted by Amendments XIII and XVI. Directly impacted," he added.
"It used to be legal to have separate but equal facilities for blacks and whites, but that's not legal anymore. It used to be legal to sexually harass your secretary. It's not legal anymore. The fact that something like the census has been done a certain way for 200 years doesn't mean that it was right. Essentially, the court whitewashed a substantial part of the challenge to the census by saying, 'it's always been done this way.'
She had the opportunity to slap down the other branch of the government and tell them they were out of line, but she backed off," he said.
Brewer said he plans to file an appeal on behalf of the Census 2000 challengers, and will also ask the trial court to extend the temporary restraining order through the appeal of the case.
"We're going to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to ask for a review by the entire court instead of one of the panels," he said. "We believe our case has a great deal of merit and deals with issues that have to be addressed."
Shit.
Judge flip-flops on Census finding
[size=12]Strikes down own earlier challenge to federal snooping
[/SIZE]By Sarah Foster
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
In a stunning reversal of her earlier decision, a federal judge has dismissed a case that would have prevented the federal government from taking criminal action against those who refuse to answer questions demanded by the U.S. Census Bureau, beyond what is required by the U.S. Constitution.
When judges have "stunning reversals" you have to wonder who got to them.
Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, wrote in a 35-page statement, "The Court finds that there is no basis for holding Census 2000 unconstitutional."
As WorldNetDaily reported in March, five Houston, Texas, residents had filed a lawsuit in federal district court. The basic question the suit addressed was: What kind of information may the United States government demand of its citizens and compel them to provide under threat of criminal penalties should they not do so?
The five -- Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, Nouhad Bassila, George Breckenridge and William Jeffrey Van Fleet -- are American citizens.
"At theheart of this claim," the plaintiffs claimed in their suit, is the threat to prosecute as criminals -- with stiff fines and possible imprisonment -- those persons who refuse to answer the Census Bureau's questions.
There are "virtually no limits to the intrusiveness of census questions propounded by the government," they noted. The penalty for non-compliance is up to $100 for each question not answered. A false answer can cost up to $500.
Judge Harmon appeared to agree with the plaintiffs when on March 25 she granted attorney Mark Brewer, of the Houston-based firm of Brewer and Pritchard, a temporary restraining order against the Census Bureau.
Speaking from the bench, the judge ruled that the bureau did not have an automatic right to ask questions felt to be personal or intrusive and that it cannot threaten or prosecute citizens who refuse to answer such questions.
"Far-reaching" is how Brewer described that first ruling.
"For the moment, this will prevent prosecution against any American who chooses not to answer questions other than the number of people living at their address -- that's all that's required by the Constitution," he said.
It was expected the case would go to a three-judge panel, but the Fifth Circuit denied that request. It fell on Harmon to issue a final summary judgment either for the plaintiffs or the Census Bureau.
Rather than expand or restate her earlier decision, the judge sided with the bureau over issues the plaintiffs raised -- about privacy, the possibility that federal agents might use collected information (particularly that dealing with race and ethnic background) to engage in illegal activities against citizens, and that the penalties for refusing or neglecting to answer the questions are particularly harsh.
What happened here???
Specifically, the plaintiffs had argued that the questions asked in both the eight-question "short form" or the 53-question "long form" go far beyond what is required by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. There, Congress is directed to conduct a count every 10 years of the number of people throughout the country for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
That's true, the judge ruled, but "... from the first census taken in 1790, the Congress has never performed a mere headcount. It has always included additional data points, such as race, sex, and age of the persons counted."
She observed that decades before the turn of the 20th century, the census had become a process for collecting statistical data the government thought necessary to function.
[size=12]"This [the Constitution] does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if 'necessary and proper,' for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the Constitution,"
[/SIZE]
But does it allow the Census Bureau to punish citizens for not complying with it's additional forays? NO!
Despite assurances to the contrary, plaintiffs Edgar Morales, Laique Rehman, and Nouhad Bassila -- all naturalized citizens -- are particularly concerned that information about their origins and ethnicity could at some point be used against them. They argued that census data of this type was used during World War II to identify Americans with Japanese ancestry who were placed in internment camps for the duration of the war.
Harmon essentially agreed with the plaintiffs.
Then why in Hell did she rule on the side of the Census Bureau?
The internment represented, in her words, "a startling example of how census data, collected for proper purposes, has been illegally used by the government for improper purposes." She even drew upon Filegate as an example of misconduct by government officials having access to confidential files. Having gone that far, however, she tossed the problem to Congress to make the necessary corrections.
"Recent non-World Wide Web incidents made this fact tangible, one involving hundreds of FBI files that were sent to low-level White House functionaries who had no need to know, and others involving confidential government personnel file information on controversial government employees, or would-be employees, sent to the media," the judge stated in a footnote.
"The plaintiffs thus cannot be faulted for questioning whether the census data, so carefully and anonymously compiled, will not be misused by the government. The horrors of the 20th century do not allow one comfortably to accept the notion that the Japanese-American experience during the Second World War was an isolated incident in the history of the United States.
We all can envision other ethnic groups who could be treated in a similar fashion given the 'proper' emergency. Nevertheless, a solution to this problem is one properly addressed by Congress, not by a court dealing with a purely hypothetical situation," she said.
WTF not? She passed the frickin' buck.
William Jeffrey Van Fleet is the plaintiff who has the most to lose in refusing to answer. Van Fleet is the only one of the five who received the long form, which has 53 questions, most of them intensely personal. Additionally, each member of a long form recipient's household is assigned an additional 33 questions. As head of a family of four, Van Fleet is expected to answer 152 questions -- each with its own separate penalty for non-response.
If he chooses not to answer, he faces a potential fine of as much as $15,200. Had he received the short form of eight questions, his fine would not exceed $300.
He is a hero.
Van Fleet argued that this subjected him to an "egregiously unequal" risk of prosecution in violation of his equal protection and due-process rights, and his rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In the words of the court, "He is required to disclose information about his medical history and condition, his ancestry and ethnic background, his income, his work habits, including how long it takes him to drive to work, and detailed information about his home, including the number of bedrooms, the nature of his plumbing, whether he owns or rents, even whether he pays his rent in cash."
Said Harmon, "Questions about the medical conditions of the members of Van Fleet's household would, in other contexts be considered private, but Census 2000 is not the first census to ask such questions." Far from it. "Asking questions well beyond the constitutionally mandated headcount is far from a novel idea of 20th century big-government bureaucrats," she said.
This makes no sense. You sold out. Who got to you? I want to know!
Mark Brewer expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that in his view, the judge didn't come to grips with certain key points.
"The court neglected two things," he said. "One is the issue of privacy. It's not private when I am forced to tell the government particularly intimate details of my life. That argument was really ignored by the court.
"Furthermore, the court failed to address the various due-process, equal-protection, anti-discrimination claims that I raised, and instead relied on the fact that historically, it's always been done that way before. But that doesn't make it right, and, more importantly, it ignores the fact that the portion of Article I dealing with the census was specifically changed by constitutional Amendment XIV, and was also impacted by Amendments XIII and XVI. Directly impacted," he added.
"It used to be legal to have separate but equal facilities for blacks and whites, but that's not legal anymore. It used to be legal to sexually harass your secretary. It's not legal anymore. The fact that something like the census has been done a certain way for 200 years doesn't mean that it was right. Essentially, the court whitewashed a substantial part of the challenge to the census by saying, 'it's always been done this way.'
She had the opportunity to slap down the other branch of the government and tell them they were out of line, but she backed off," he said.
Brewer said he plans to file an appeal on behalf of the Census 2000 challengers, and will also ask the trial court to extend the temporary restraining order through the appeal of the case.
"We're going to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to ask for a review by the entire court instead of one of the panels," he said. "We believe our case has a great deal of merit and deals with issues that have to be addressed."
Shit.
"If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money."
-Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses
-Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses