<DIV>Sunil,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I disagree that the FLDS invasion is the same as the permanent expansion of powers outlines in the Patriot Act. One is for a perceived danger, the other is a real one. Second, the police were acting according to existing law, and had multiple reasons to enter the compound. The decision has to be with the support and cooperation of multiple legal authorities, and the Patriot Act doesn't.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <STYLE> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </STYLE> Tom,<BR><BR>You are vigorously defending exceptions to the Fourth Amendment that have taken away our privacy and our rights under the
Constitution. Now there's no denying these exceptions exist, and I think we are the less for them. And for every time an exception is created, there is some crime that is successfully prosecuted because of the exception, and I'm sure there are people who say, 'Good, it's worth it, and we're safer now.'<BR><BR>I just want to point out that the same rationale can be used to defend every aspect of the Patriot Act. The government tells us we're safer as they intrude into our privacy. <BR><BR>That's the bottom line. <BR><BR>Sunil<BR><BR>> To: ophite@gmail.com; thansen@moscow.com; kjajmix1@msn.com; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> From: thansen@moscow.com<BR>> Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 13:42:49 +0000<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] condemning rape redux/FLDS<BR>> <BR>> Bottom-line, though -<BR>> <BR>> This compound is within the jurisdiction of Texas and is required to obey <BR>> Texas laws. Are you suggecting that Texas
magistrates are wrong for <BR>> enforcinig Texas law?<BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Moscow, Idaho<BR>> <BR>> > > Nancy Grace, and several other attorneys (to include a couple Texas<BR>> > > judges) feel that the argument is moot concerning non-admissability <BR>> of the<BR>> > > evidence gathered from the compound.<BR>> > <BR>> > Which is unsurprising, as Nancy Grace always feels that whichever<BR>> > decision most benefits the prosecution is the correct one. And as<BR>> > Texas is the most pro-prosecution state in the Union (causing enormous<BR>> > problems for the unjustly accused), it's unsurprising that Texas<BR>> > judges agree.<BR>> > <BR>> > -- ACS<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "People who ridicule others while hiding behind anonymous monikers in chat-<BR>> room forums are neither brave nor clever." <BR>> <BR>> - Latah County Sheriff Wayne Rausch (August
21,<BR>> 2007)<BR>> <BR>> ---------------------------------------------<BR>> This message was sent by First Step Internet.<BR>> http://www.fsr.com/<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a>