How to avoid sacrificing liberty for security

Where’s my refund? In my case, it’s anything but quick or easy.

One of my favorite movies (although rather violent) is Payback, starring Mel Gibson as Porter. His character in the film is a criminal- a robber. The plot is that he robs a gang with another robber and is double crossed for his “cut” of the money, $70,000. The other robber owed money to the “syndicate”, so he paid them the money. The film is about Porter’s efforts to get just his money- no more, although crooked cops and others try to get a piece of the action. At one point, he confronts a syndicate boss and then talks to the crooked cops. The scenes went like this:

I can identify with the runaround. I’m writing this due to a wasted afternoon spent at the local IRS field office, this place:

My first observation was that the person preparing this sign was likely poorly educated, as taxpayer is one word, not two.

I’ll not comment on the ID required part other than to warn again the federal REAL ID Act has as an official purpose of entry into a government building. In the near future, no gold star on your license, no entry.

Back to the IRS and taxes. My retirement account mandates a 20% withholding, so I have no choice but to overpay my taxes. If it were up to me, I’d have zero withholding and pay what was due April 15. I’d like to see zero withholding happen to everyone- I think that is our last hope for enough people to get mad enough to get involved. Imagine having to write a check to the IRS every pay period or every year.

I filed my taxes this year electronically as I have for the last 10+ years. This year, I received a rejection by the IRS, SSN already used. I’ll boil down the lengthy (mainly waiting) phone call to them as that I had to file a paper return, and the service center would figure out what was going on. This would take 6-8 weeks just to determine if fraud had taken place. I mailed the return and a couple weeks later checked the online refund status (Where’s My Refund). It said I’d have my money by May 22 unless something else was needed. While any delay was not good, at least there was a light at the end of the tunnel. The following weekend, my wife and I got letters from the IRS saying our return was being held up for up to another 45 days for additional review.

I suppose I should have mentioned at the onset that I started this site after being penalized for 25 years of police work- what the IRS calls the “early retirement penalty”. I pay 10% on top of my regular taxes since the IRS does not like the fact I manage my own money and because although I served just as many years as someone a few years older than me that was unsure about what they wanted to do, because I was a certain age when I lawfully retired, I have to pay the penalty. I’ve paid thousands of dollars to the government that I wanted to use to pay off our home. If you’ve read almost anything at this site, chances are you’ll see the government has wasted my money.

The letter prompted a visit to the Tallahassee IRS field office. After showing my ID and turning off my phone- I asked the security guard what the underlying federal law was for this requirement and all she could do was point towards the sign. When I left, I explained to her if someone relied upon their phone for business, the government depriving them of that would be in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments- deprivation of property.

I found a sign on the counter interesting- your conversation would be recorded for training and quality purposes, and if you did not want it recorded, you had to inform the IRS representative. I was the third person in line that day, and I noticed no one in front of me asked to do so. “I don’t want my conversation recorded” were the first words out of my mouth when my number was called. The rep had to read a government form to me and again asked if I did not want it recorded. I said I don’t want my conversation recorded. After a click on the computer, she asked why I was there. I explained my refund scenario to her, and had to again show my ID. I typed in my SSN into a keypad, and answered some basic questions such as address, date of birth (DOB), and my wife’s DOB. She did some checking and after a few minutes and more questions confirmed my SSN had been compromised. She said there was a huge amount of ID theft in Florida such as this, and a backlog of cases. She could not tell me when it would be resolved (the fellow that was first in line had the same thing happen to him and his estimate was 6 months to a year). She said I could file an affidavit, but it would not speed up the process, and to do so would mean the IRS would copy my ID and SSN card. I declined. I told her as a police officer in Florida, I could work an ID Theft case in 10 days. Mrs. Henry later suggested I apply for work at the IRS to help clear out the backlog of cases. Somehow I doubt they’d hire me.

What bothers me the most here is the inequity. If I owe the IRS and don’t pay, there are (more) penalties and interest. I get no such consideration for the money they withhold up to 12 months, and now for the time beyond that. The IRS could conceivably hold my money for two years and not pay me anything. My gut instinct is to file suit against them- but of course this takes money that I don’t have. I realize it is un-Christian of me, but I hate the IRS.

When you hear someone say our government is out of control, the above is one reason why. Maybe I can call my congressman- that’s what got me started into the political field in 2009 when Mr. Allen Boyd never responded and I had to use my police skills to track down a member of his staff to get an answer. Seeing as how my congressman is Mr. Southerland, who has a big-government voting record that includes extending the USA Patriot Act, authorizing the indefinite detention of citizens by the military (NDAA), and restricting our 1st Amendment rights (HR 347), my logical brain tells me that would be another waste of time.

So I’ve found the answer to the question here: My money- yes or no? It is a no. I only wish it worked the same in return to where I could withhold “their” money, or at least get some interest on mine.

I’ll close this on a lighter note with a funny video about the IRS by a fellow called Remy. It’s funny because it is true: Use your head to make some cash and go ahead and send us half.

The late Dr. Grant Jeffrey

This post is for my Christian friends, or those that have studied the Bible. In our church, we go through the Bible verse by verse. We’re currently in Revelation. One thing that I have always concluded is that America the superpower is not in the battle of Armageddon as described there. I wondered what would cause our downfall- though the last few years it has become clear to me. I recently watched an episode of a show called Bible Prophecy Revealed where this was the exact topic. The host, the late Grant Jeffrey (I learned while typing this he passed away this week), would likely be considered a Tea Party activist if you just read the script from the show and didn’t know what it was about. Although he was Canadian, Dr. Jeffrey pointed out all of the financial woes the USA is facing, and how he along with others believe this will be our downfall. I’ll embed the episode here, it is about 27 minutes long:

Dr. Jeffrey has a charity fund that you can contribute to here from his web page, and it is here in Florida:
In lieu of flowers :
Friends in the U.S., please send donations to:
Prison Book Project
P.O. Box 1146
Sharpes, FL 32959
321-269-4100
http://prisonbookproject.com/

What is clear from reading the Bible is that the world will transition into a global government. Those that think of their own nation before others will have no place there. My friends that do so much research on Agenda 21 make an excellent case for this.

What does this have to do with the 2012 election? Am I saying either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney is the antichrist? Not at all. But they are most certainly a step in that direction. We cannot get to the time and place described in Revelation without this taking place. America will be a part of the global government, but not in a leadership role.

Consider the examples Dr. Jeffrey cited of England- after WW2, in just a few years, their empire had shrunk to just a fraction of what it had been. Ditto Russia just a few decades ago. In 2000, America was THE superpower with a weapons research and acquisition budget that was more than the next 10 nations combined. Now just a little over a decade later, so much has changed. There has been a massive change in the economy, political, and military situations of the USA.

We are in the greatest jobless recovery in our history. The great depression ended as the USA had to re-militarize its troops for WW2. We’ve now been in a recession since 2007, made worse by a housing crisis, and a lower ability to borrow. The government caused/worsened this (depending upon who you ask) by encouraging high-risk loans (see the section titled The Community Reinvestment Act or CRA on this page of my site from 2009).

A significant factor here is that once you begin down the path of massive regulations (see the first part of my page linked above) you make business so difficult that a small business cannot deal with them, and they cannot afford to expand. This has caused American businesses to seek investment away from America. 79% of small business owners said excessive taxes, excessive regulation and legislation make it harder for them to hire more employees. Excessive regulations cost us $1.75 trillion each year.

Dr. Jeffrey illustrated his financial point with a lot of numbers. In 2008, our national debt was $8 trillion. Canada had $700 billion, and is 1/10 the size, so this would be about $7 trillion if multiplied out. The ratio of debt to gross national product (GNP) for the USA was 55%. Anything below 100% is good- lower is better. Greece for example is 130%. Canada was 52% in 2008. Just 2 years later, the USA’s debt was $14 trillion- nearly double. It took 230 years to get to $8 trillion, and only 2 more to get to $14 trillion (it is now over $15 trillion and climbing). During this time, Canada paid down its debt 25% to $519 billion for a ratio of 33%. The USA was close to 100% as of 2010, and as most of us know, it got worse. There are several countries in Europe in addition to Greece that have debt ratios beyond 100%. At that point, you cannot raise taxes high enough to get out of debt. You cannot spend more than you have and remain prosperous.

I’d ask that you look at the financial plans of our candidates as well as those running for Congress- where the money is spent. Only one has a tangible plan to save America financially. It’s not Mr Obama, who of course continued to spend even more than Mr. Bush did, and it is not Mr. Romney. While Ron Paul has been dismissed and largely ignored by the media and many voters, if they made a logical analysis of our economic situation, there would be no other outcome than to drastically cut spending. Many of these voters consider Iran to be more of a threat than our economic self-destruction. As I’ve written repeatedly, it is inarguable that if our domestic policy results in our failure, our foreign policy is of no importance. If America was a bomber, this is akin to our suffering engine failure and crashing before we drop the first bomb. In that situation, the target of the bombing is irrelevant- as we never made it over the target.

I realize a vast majority of people will not perform any amount of research before voting. Some things are ingrained. As an example, at last night’s county commission meeting, one of our commissioners talked about getting “federal money” for a building in one of the small towns in our county. One of the first times I spoke at one of these meetings, I explained that there was no such thing as federal money, but it fell on deaf ears and an open checkbook. Washington is looked at as a gravy train with a never-ending stream of revenue.

So as we go to the 2012 election, your vote for either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney will get us one step closer to the economic downfall of our nation- and the end times as written about in the Bible. I know this will happen, its just that I’m not really happy about it happening now. Part of being a mature Christian is not only seeking God’s will and timing, but accepting it as well. Please continue to pray for our nation and its leaders, and for the widow of Dr. Jeffrey for comfort in her time of loss.

What do they fear?

I get daily alerts about news stories regarding red light cameras, so I can say there is plenty of news coverage about them. This post is not meant to paint with an overly-broad brush, since the media has been the only way some injustices involving red light cameras ever were corrected- such as people getting tickets for their tag sequence when the vehicle that ran the light had another state’s tag on it, or the wrong vehicle entirely being cited. This post will focus on why the media does not obtain and publish- or at least make available for independent review- the exact data that would support the “safety” aspect of the cameras: Crash reports.

When I first started on the highway patrol, a collision involving a motor vehicle was called an accident. Some years later, it was renamed a crash. Police have always completed crash reports for several reasons, including but not limited to-

• The investigation as to the cause of the crash and prosecution of the offending party/parties.
• Statistics, used for analysis to determine if additional engineering was needed.
• A written record for insurance claims.

We’ll focus on the second one.

Let’s say red light running was causing a large number of our crashes in Florida- although it isn’t. According to the Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles publication Traffic Crash Facts, as of 2009, the year before the cameras were “legalized” by the legislature,  all categories of crashes- fatal, injury, and property damage- red light violations accounted for about 2.8% of all crashes. To justify the need for enforcement, we should show there were a high amount of crashes due to red light running. Fail #1. But we’ll disregard that fact for now.

I’ll lay this out as the city government of the fictional Cashflow, FL using two scenarios. We have 10 intersections with red light signals, and over the course of the year we experience 100 crashes in the city. Of these crashes, a total of six take place within an intersection with a red light signal. All the rest are rear-end crashes prior to the intersection, or at an intersection without a signal- such as a vehicle turning left, or running off the road and hitting a pole, etc. Since our crash rate at the signals is over twice the state average, we must do something, so we start by analyzing the crashes. We find that of the 10 intersections with signals, crashes took place at five of them- one had two crashes. More on this later.

We then find out about the “easy button” for red light enforcement, red light cameras. We are solicited by the fictional prestigious camera firm of Willwe, Foolem, and Howe. They put on a free presentation and explain how our red light enforcement can be handled by them for free, and it will result in a lot of money for our city. They suggest we use “violation” data to show how many cars run red lights in our city as opposed to how many actually crash.

In scenario one, our Police Chief says the camera use should go to where the most crashes were, and the five intersections that had a crash in the prior year get cameras as opposed to the video study that shows five others had more violations. The Chief points to the crash reports that show this is where the crashes took place, so this is where the cameras need to be. It’s not difficult to understand that- just as with any manpower issue for police, you direct your resources to where the need arises. You do not, for example, increase patrols in an area where there have been only 10 daytime burglaries in a year as opposed to one where there have been 50. The same principle applies to traffic enforcement.

In scenario two, the Chief is overruled by the city council, and they install the cameras at the intersections where the most violations were recorded. While this is possibly a valid means, it is less valid than utilizing the location where there was an actual crash vs. one that did not have any crashes.

So what does the media have to do with all of this? Like anything else they deem worthy of investigation, they can show if the facts align with what is actually taking place. If they do not, we can’t be sure the information they are presenting (which is often a press release from either local government or worse yet a camera company) is accurate.

Remember those crash reports? Upon review of the crash reports that involved red light violations, it is found they took place at varied days of the week, but most were in the evening after 10 PM and before 3 AM. Further investigation reveals of the six, five involved DUI drivers that ran the light. However, if we expand the list to include crashes within 50 feet of an intersection, the number jumps from six to 50. In the year following the camera installation, the number of crashes within intersections is five, or a 16% reduction. These five also involve impaired drivers. For the sake of this post, we’ll say the overall crashes were about the same, but using the 50 foot standard the number did not decrease. If however, we now define an intersection as being within 20 feet of the legal boundary instead of 50 feet, we find  that instead of 50 crashes, we now have only 25. Incidentally, the only way to determine this information is from the actual crash report.

After a year of camera use, we say that there were 50 crashes at intersections within the year prior to the cameras, and in the year following, there were only 25- which is a 50% reduction. Who can argue with success like that? The answer is no one unless they perform an analysis of the actual crash reports. If they did, they’d find that the cause in all of the current year crashes were drunk drivers, and if the same standard were applied there was no reduction in overall crashes and only a 16% reduction in red light violations. Keep in mind this is a better-case scenario for the cameras- it may well have been a 16% increase.

The average citizen cannot afford to shell out big loads of cash to buy crash reports- but do you wonder what would happen if they did? Wonder no more. In 2011, a citizen named Burt Eno, who is a retired Engineering Professor, obtained the crash reports the City of Dunnellon used to justify their red light cameras. While I do not know him, I have read his report on the situation. In summary, he wrote:

In summary, none of the 27 accident reports submitted with the three camera installation applications pertained to red-light-running and none of them involved right-hand turns.

I obtained the applications for Tallahassee, but they failed to include any crash reports or data- instead relying upon video surveys that showed violations and a generic “the police say we need it” statement. Per DOT rules, these are acceptable methods.

I have written to several news organizations that have written articles about red light cameras and specifically statistics, such as WFTV in Orlando. I tell them of my law enforcement background so they know I am not just some crackpot on the Internet. To date, only one person, a reporter in Tallahassee for WCTV, has ever responded. His response was that they may look into it in the future. One function of our free media is to hold our government accountable for what they do. When the media fails to do so, people like Dr. Eno have to step up. If the actual data is not available, we have to trust that our government is accurately reporting it. The media used to care about this, but apparently not so much anymore.

The issue of camera placement is something I will address in the 2013 version of the Motorist Rights bill. In addition to addressing several legal issues, it will require any government wishing to install a new automated traffic enforcement device to show there is a need based upon crash reports over a certain period of time prior to the installation. It’s common sense, but it will hurt cashflow (pun intended) and as such be strongly opposed by the well-funded local government and camera lobbyists.

While reading the local paper’s Facebook page, I saw a thread where a number of parents were really upset over their kids not being given a trophy for playing ball. Apparently it had been the custom to award a trophy to every kid that played. This year, the trophies were only going to be awarded to the champions. The outrage paid off, as the person in charge changed the decision and now Everybody Wins a Trophy.

I see this situation as being one undesirable end of the spectrum, with the parents that get overly involved in- up to and including fistfights over their kids games- as the other equally undesirable end. Politically, it’s like anarchy and totalitarianism. Neither is a desirable way to live. It’s just a game. There will be others. To the first group, I say someone will win and someone will lose- and we can learn from our losses. To the second group, I say it is just a child’s game- let them enjoy it without it being the end of the world if they lose.

The lesson our children are learning here is that it doesn’t matter what the outcome is- we are all winners. My kid pointed out a video by the late  George Carlin to me called Every Child is Special. I won’t post it here due to some bad language, but he was right. If we say that everyone is special, the term special loses its meaning and we go back to where we started. If Everybody Wins a Trophy, there is no need to keep score. In school, if everyone gets an A, there is no need for grades. At some point, this emperor-has-no-clothes story has really bad consequences- the worker attaching the wing on an airplane that leaves out half of the bolts is told he is doing just as good a job as the other worker using all of the bolts. This will be of little comfort to the passengers at 30,000 feet when the wings fall off. In the real world, as Mr. Carlin observed, he’d be fired for substandard performance before the plane left the factory.

This is often carried on later in life. I recall attending a video conference as a police supervisor. Our employee rating system was being revised. It had been below standards, meets standards, or exceeds standards. This system worked well, as all employees fell into one of these categories. The new system contained only two categories- needs improvement or meets standards. If any employee did a really good job, they would be considered as having met standards but could be put in for a special recognition. When I asked why this was being done, I was told that the old system placed labels on people, and we didn’t want to do that.

One of my favorite movies contains the line “There are no points for second place.” While that scenario dealt with Air Combat Maneuvering, the lesson remains the same for our lives. Life invariably gives us wins and losses. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not mention the assurance of happiness, as that is something no one can guarantee. Congress cannot legislate it. Money cannot buy it.

I’ve written here elsewhere about letting our kids be kids when a school system was buying ipads for kindergarteners. Part of that is allowing them to fail- and then loving and supporting them to try again. It is by doing this our children will grow up without an artificial belief that no matter how hard you work Everybody Wins a Trophy, and be better equipped for life.

 Remember the game we played as kids? Now the consequences are much more serious.

The title here was the gist of a reply to one of my recent blogs in a local political discussion group. The person added that we needed to elect true conservatives into Congress.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this about a candidate I supported.

I heard that so many times when I was volunteering for independent candidate Paul McKain for Congress (then it was a vote for Paul McKain is a vote for Allen Boyd, the incumbent Democrat) that it became clear to me the general mass of voters do not care about the principles or integrity of the candidate, just how much they have in their campaign account and the letter behind the name. The term “true conservative” has been bastardized in my opinion. A better label to apply is a true constitutionalist- which Paul McKain was and is. In that election, we got a “true conservative”. Let’s examine that one.

As I recently posted, the victor in that one, Steve Southerland, voted for CISPA, which gives the government access to our electronic transactions without any legal process. While in office, he has also voted to extend the USA Patriot Act, for NDAA (indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military on US soil), and HR 347, which curtails our 1st Amendment right to protest/petition the government. Prior to the 2010 election, it became publicized he was delinquent and had been delinquent on his property taxes- and I’m the one that shot the video of him answering a question from a voter “Do you pay your taxes?” where he deftly skirted property taxes. In that election, enough people wanted “anyone but Boyd- so long as it is a Republican” that due to his campaign balance, Mr. Southerland won. Incidentally, he subsequently complained his salary of $174K/year was not a lot of money (Congressional pay doubled from 1981-1991). As I wrote in 2009/2010, do you want someone that cannot manage their own money to manage yours? By the way, there was a very good Republican candidate in that race- Lt. Col. David Scholl, who apparently did not raise enough money to get on the “Republican radar”.

My friend Paul McKain got 3% of the vote in 2010. A vote for him apparently was not a vote for Allen Boyd, as Mr. Southerland won the election. But what then was a vote for Steve Southerland (the answer is it was a vote for less liberty), and by extension, what is a vote for Mitt Romney? Based on Mr. Romney’s  record, it’s clear a vote for Mitt Romney more so than a vote for Ron Paul is in fact a vote for Mr. Obama, as Mr. Romney is more similar to Mr. Obama than he is to Ron Paul.

Do people realize what they are doing when they vote based solely upon the letter after the candidate’s name? I think not.

My friend Andrew Nappi and others have been keeping score of how our Florida Congressional Delegation are voting. The results are not good for liberty. As the saying goes, a picture is worth 1,000 words- and that’s a few hundred less than I usually write here, so I can save myself some time and your eyeballs some effort.

The issue today is CISPA- Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, HR 3523. There was quite a bit of controversy over earlier versions of this bill (called SOPA/PIPA) due to numerous concerns. I’ll link a review of it on the non-partisan site Open Congress here. In summary:

According to the bill’s supporters, the idea is to make it easier for corporations and the government to share information about potential cybersecurity issues. But the bill’s text goes much farther than that. It would allow web companies to share virtually any information about their users with the government, without a court order. No prior privacy laws would apply.

I want to give credit for the artwork on these photos, but am not entirely sure who made them. I received them from my friend Andrew’s Facebook page. Here’s how our Florida delegation voted (non-graphical users can see the entire results here on GovTrack). It would be easier to just tell you who voted no on the final version- Reps. Brown, Mack, Posey, Wilson, Deutch, Schultz, and Hastings. 18 out of 25 voted for it, so this was 72% of our delegation.

Have we lost all hope? Not yet. An amendment by Rep. Amash (R-MI) to limit the span of this bill was successfully passed.  The bill has not passed the Senate, and Mr. Obama may veto it. For equal time here, I put my own Photoshop skills to work, and came up with this- if you have never heard of Rep. Amash, look him up:

And in the case of my mother-in-law (M-I-L), that is certainly the case. We’ve kidded “Granny” for years about her direct connection to God through prayer. My M-I-L is probably the least political person I know. So I was rather surprised this weekend to hear her say that voting for Mr. Romney would give us no difference than voting for Mr. Obama. I quipped she was not the one with a Ron Paul sticker on her vehicle (I have 4: a car, a truck, and two motorcycles).

If you think there is a significant difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, spend 10 minutes and watch this video:

Now we contrast these issues with Ron Paul:

I suppose between the scripture we’ve been reading in church lately (we go through the Bible verse-by-verse on Wednesdays with a topic on Sunday) as well as my 23.25/6 (I usually find 45 minutes a day to sleep) political activity, in the back of my mind I feel the USA is not going to exist as we know it much longer.

One factor here is that I see people I like and respect that have fallen into the mindset that we have to vote for Mr. Romney, who they really don’t care for, since they have been led to believe he can beat Mr. Obama. Deja Vu? Did we not read that about John McCain in 2008? I made that mistake then- and to quote Dana Carvey as George HW Bush ‘Not gonna do it, wouldn’t be prudent’. Back then I thought Ron Paul was some guy out in right field. After being hit with a 10% tax penalty and finding out how our system of representation for those taxes does not work along with liberties that diminish almost monthly, my journey has led me to Ron Paul for 2012. Call me a “Paulbot” or what you will, but I would sooner write in his name than to vote for either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama. Why?

We’ll start with some light reading- the Bill of Rights. Do you like them?

Do you like the 1st amendment? HR 347 recently ignored the right to peaceably assemble by restricting the grounds of a location where a “protected” person was going to be. What about the “protected” rights of the citizens? Ron Paul opposed it, one of just a handful in Congress to do so (Google Justin Amash, he was another opponent, and he is a great representative). It passed by a huge majority.

Do you like the 2nd amendment? Ron Paul has offered a bill each year since 2002 to allow fight crews and police officers to fly armed on aircraft. Just one such person could have reversed the outcome of 9/11. Unlike Mr. Romney, he does not support so-called “assault” weapon bans, and has not raised fees on gun owners 400 percent.

The 3rd amendment deals with soldiers being quartered here in a time of peace or war. Thankfully, we’re not there yet- but keep reading about the NDAA.

Do you like the 4th amendment (I do)? Ron Paul has consistently opposed the warrantless searches and other unconstitutional provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Despite campaigning on doing otherwise, Mr. Obama signed an extension of the USA Patriot Act into law.

Do you like the 5th amendment? While most think of TV cops and “You have the right to remain silent…”, it is so much more than that- double jeopardy, due process, and the protection of private property. Ron Paul has been a consistent advocate of protecting private property. He has not signed into law a bill making you buy health insurance. That’s not something either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama can say. Money, by the way, is property. When the government makes you pay money, there must be an opportunity for due process. Withholding part of your tax return (as the federal law proposes to do) without a hearing violates this amendment.

Do you like the 6th amendment? Ron Paul was again one of just a few to oppose the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which does away with several of the protections listed in this amendment and allows indefinite detention by the US military of US citizens on US soil. Mr. Romney is on record as supporting NDAA, and of course Mr. Obama signed it into law.

The 7th amendment is kind of like #3 from a politician angle- suits in common law and a trial by jury for them are not huge campaign issues.

Like the 8th amendment? Ron Paul has opposed torture as a reliable means of getting information. The 8th amendment bans cruel or unusual punishment among other things.

We’ll lump in the 9th amendment with #3 and #7, but it is significant that the founders thought that the enumeration of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights.

Finally, a biggie. My favorite, the 10th amendment- and also one regularly ignored by Republicans and Democrats alike. It’s simple, really, there are a set of enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 that tell Congress what they can do. My work against REAL ID has shown Ron Paul consistently voted against bills like this that allow the federal government to overstep their bounds- and cost us millions of dollars and our liberty. As usual, he was usually one of a very few that did so.

There are of course many other factors in deciding who to vote for. I urge you to research them at length. I have. The biggest argument my friends make against Ron Paul is his perceived “weak” foreign policy. Suffice it to say, my short answer to that has been if we have a devastating domestic policy- and 4 more years of either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama will guarantee that- what difference does our foreign policy make? Look at the powerful Soviet Union in the cold war- and look at them just a few years later after excessive spending and other things we are doing here ruined them. The long answer? How effective has our foreign policy been with our involvement in never ending wars that are chewing up the arms, legs, and lives of our service people as well as billions of our tax dollars?

This election to me boils down to one simple thing: Do you like the way we’re going, or are you willing to try something different with someone that has the unique quality (for a politician) of constitutional consistency? If the former, choose either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama. Just like picking a red taxi or a blue one, they will both take you to the same destination. How about we skip the cab ride (and the $15+ trillion cab fare) and instead choose another means, Ron Paul, to go in the opposite direction?

Which Smith do you prefer: The Agent or the Statesman?

I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on the Internet. But I do like to read. I get news stories about red light cameras as well as other legislative and liberty issues I follow. Last night, one story was about the Judge in Pasco County that had found the red light camera law unconstitutional since it violated due process. She has since set aside her ruling so the matter can be considered in Circuit Court and our Attorney general can become involved.

If you are not aware of how the law works, if a vehicle you own is alleged to have run a red light, you eventually get a ticket in the mail, usually within a 30 day period of time. You as the owner under F.S. 316.0083 are presumed to have committed the violation unless one of several exceptions applies, such as your car was stolen, an officer had already cited you, or a few others. Most notably, if someone else was driving your car, you fill out an affidavit and they can be cited. I’ll note my friend Rep. Brad Drake (R-DHSMV*) last year in his committee gutted our Motorist Rights Bill so the government could mail out more tickets due to these circumstances, but thankfully the bill died. Adios buddy, you will not be missed in 2013. In this posting, I will look into the legality of the use of affidavits and witness testimony in red light camera cases. Keep in mind none of this legalese is needed for an officer-issued ticket, since the officer identifies the driver.

In Florida, there are rules of procedure for court. There is a traffic court rules of procedure (PDF). There are civil (PDF) and criminal (PDF) rules of procedures. In the Florida Rules of Traffic Court, it talks about witnesses. The specific rule is 6.150, “Witnesses”.

In subsection (a), it says the rules for witnesses are the same as in civil or criminal court unless provided otherwise here or in the law.

Procedure. The procedure prescribed by law in civil and criminal cases concerning the attendance and testimony of witnesses, the administration of oaths and affirmations, and proceedings to enforce the remedies and protect the rights of the parties shall govern traffic cases as far as they are applicable unless provided otherwise by these rules or by the law.

In subsection (b), it specifies details for affidavits:

Use of Affidavits. A defendant in a civil infraction case may offer evidence of other witnesses through use of one or more affidavits. The affidavits shall be considered by the court only as to the facts therein that are based on the personal knowledge and observation of the affiant as to relevant material facts. However, the affidavits shall not be admissible for the purpose of establishing character or reputation.

Note that affidavits can only be used by a defendant in traffic court. This means the plaintiff (the charging agency) must utilize live witnesses. Keep the above bold text in mind as we go.

Next, let’s look at a typical case. We’ll say a vehicle is owned by a resident of Apopka, FL named Mr. Smith, and he has 4 licensed drivers in his household that regularly use the family car. On April 26, 2012, someone drives Mr. Smith’s car through a red light and a camera takes photo and video evidence of the violation. The evidence is sent out-of-state to Arizona, and processed by the for-profit enforcement company, then sent back to the local police. An officer reviews the evidence, and decides to mail a ticket to Mr. Smith. About two weeks later, and three weeks after the violation, Mr. Smith gets the ticket in the mail. Since he was out of town on a business trip on that date, he knows he was not the driver. The only options available to him are to either:

1. Pay the fine,
2. Complete an affidavit, or
3. Not pay the fine and get a more expensive ticket so he can go to court.

Mr. Smith goes to Apopka (not Washington like the good guy in the picture on the right above) and gets an affidavit. He learns he must identify the driver on April 26, 2012. Since he was out of town and was not in his car on the date and time of the violation, he cannot offer any direct evidence. All he can do is speculate, or offer what  is known as hearsay evidence. Witness testimony is generally either direct, where the witness has direct knowledge of the information via witnessing the events (recall the bold text earlier), or hearsay, where the witness was told something by someone- i.e. they heard someone say something. Hearsay evidence in Florida is prohibited (see F.S. 90.802) unless it falls into one of several exceptions (see F.S. 90.803).

To add additional information here, let’s say Mr. Smith’s wife, Mrs. Smith, tells him that she was the driver on April 26, 2012. Under Florida’s spousal privilege law, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other one (see F.S. 90.504) in a traffic case. This means Mr. Smith cannot be compelled to identify his wife if she told him she was the driver. He’s now on the hook for the fine, even though he was not the one that broke the law. He can, of course, become the government’s agent (that’s the bad guy on the left above if you have never seen The Matrix)  and waive the spousal privilege and testify against his wife in traffic court. Happily ever after indeed.

Let’s go with the best case for Apopka being able to drag an affidavit out of our Mr. Smith. Let’s say one of his adult children tells him they think they were driving the car three weeks ago. Mr. Smith then completes an affidavit to this effect and has now become the government’s agent in prosecuting his own child. Briefly overlooking this Nazi-esque situation, the charging agency mails a ticket to the child. Mr. Smith can now testify as to the admission his child made, since one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule is:

(18)?ADMISSIONS.—A statement that is offered against a party and is:

(a)?The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;

Time for a monkey wrench in the justice system. According to F.S. 90.604, unless they are an “expert” witness, a witness may “not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.” We’re likely still good, though as Agent, I mean Mr. Smith’s extracted confession still stands.

Now if none of the other drivers remembers who had the car that date, there can be no admission. What can Mr. Smith do then? Just as in the above circumstance, he must pay the fine. Of course, he could go to court and argue his right to due process has been violated.

Does a father being compelled to testify against his kids or against his wife in traffic court seem just a little sideways? Ditto an innocent person being fined. Whatever happened to cops pulling people over and giving them tickets based upon direct evidence? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Our “smaller government” Republicans like Mr. Drake (R-DHSMV) have done away with it- that’s what happened here.

If you want to do something positive for liberty in Florida, please visit www.libertytakeover2012.com. There you’ll find candidates for office that have read, understand, and most importantly will follow the US and Florida Constitutions. Please help these “little guys” go to Tallahassee and Washington. The next “Mr. Smith” is likely among them.

*While most politicians have the city or area they represent after their name, in Rep. Drake’s case, in 2012 he clearly represented the Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles instead of the people of Florida, so I’ve changed his designator to more accurately reflect who he represented.

I have good news and bad news here. This is something I’ve been meaning to write for a few weeks but kept putting it off. The good news is one of our local troopers has been coming to our church regularly. I met him while working on my friend’s congressional campaign in 2009-2010. It was good to see him there, and I took the opportunity to talk with him.

I was saddened to learn from him a friend of mine I used to work with had taken his life last year after resigning from the FHP. That’s the bad news. The fact that there were 143 law enforcement suicides in America in 2009 is even worse news. I hope that by writing about this, maybe someone else that is experiencing the same thoughts may be helped.

My friend, who I will call Jim, had worked with me in Ft. Myers years ago. He was always a happy guy with a good sense of humor. Often the worst critics of cops are other cops. My friend had obtained a nickname of “Buck” Savage for some shall we say less than thorough police reports. Officer Buck Savage was a fictional cop they taught us about at the academy that wrote very brief police reports, i.e. “Saw one drunk, arrested same.” The videos were a humorous way to learn what not to do.

Jim was a capable officer when the time came, though. I’ll share a story. The FHP worked at the time three 8 hour shifts, with midnight shift being from 11 PM to 7 AM.  We changed shifts every 28 days. On the last day of our cycle, Jim and I were on midnight shift together, and had met up at the beginning of the shift to talk. I remember him uttering those famous last words, “Last night of midnights, nothing can happen now!” The midnight shift was where you usually saw the unusual stuff. He went on his way and a while later I was talking to some deputies at a 7/11 when I heard Jim, who was normally Mr. Mellow, calling out excitedly on the radio. He had observed a car northbound in the southbound lanes of Interstate 75 and had nearly been hit head-on. Due to my location, I was several miles ahead of where Jim was. I was able to get on I-75 and stop the southbound traffic, and as the wrong-way driver approached, pull a “T.J. Hooker” maneuver involving a police baton vs. the windshield- the driver, like others that are impaired had not taken notice of the black & yellow cars with the pretty blue lights, either Jim’s car on the other side of the road, or mine as he passed by.

The thump of the baton broke his trance, and he pulled into the median. In a situation such as that, you tend to get tunnel vision, and I got into my car and drove into the median to arrest the driver. Jim got there about the same time, and as we were getting the driver out of the car, a black BMW pulled up and two large guys got out and said “We’re cops!”. They proceeded to assist in the arrest, and Jim took the driver to jail while I waited for the tow truck. It was about an hour later that I met him at the jail and we looked at each other and at the same time said “Who were those guys?” We had been so focused on the drunk driver that neither of us got the names of the guys that stopped and helped us. This led me to believe they likely were off duty cops- they got to help in the arrest (the interesting/fun stuff you see on TV) and not have to bother with being involved as a witness (the reports and boring stuff you don’t see on TV).

Jim had transferred out of Ft. Myers to the slower pace of North Florida some years before I retired. I recall hearing him on the radio one day when I was traveling through his district going to the training academy in Tallahassee, so I called him and we met at his station. I knew life was much slower there as we talked for over 45 minutes and he did not have a call for service- something that never happened in Ft. Myers during the day or evening shift. The next time I saw him I had been retired for a while and living in the paradise known as North Florida. He was talking with some other troopers under an overpass- I had stopped to visit with them, and was pleased to see Jim. He was not happy with working conditions, but did not go into detail.

I don’t know why he did what he did. My wise wife Mrs. Henry tells me from time to time you never know what you’ll do until you are in that situation.

If you are reading this and either are thinking about it or know someone that is, I can assure you it is most definitely a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and the damage is not restricted to just the self-inflicted wounds. From working traffic homicides, I know the worst part is borne by the surviving family and friends. Even now, I feel guilty for not sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with my friend. Might it have saved his life? I’ll never know. Another thing cops (and others) do is Monday-morning quarterback themselves. If nothing else, one thing I’ve observed recently is that in America between “smart” phones, Facebook, e-mail, and yes blogs like this one, we don’t know each other anymore. I’m thinking of some ways to counter this in a positive manner.

We were created by a God that loves us- and are opposed by an enemy that hates us. At a recent spiritual warfare class at my church, this point was illustrated many times. One of the associate pastors at my church is a retired Tallahassee Police Captain. One of the examples he cited was a friend of his that on the outside seemed to have a great life. Pastor Kelly recalled getting a call one day and having to take a weapon out of the friend’s hand.

The life we lead can often be one of loneliness and depression- and police work coupled with shift work can add to these feelings. I know it is not any better since I have retired with the general decline of society. As noted the suicide rate is too high, and affects too many of us. I recall a deputy that I had worked a theft detail with that took his life a few weeks after we had worked the detail. When he had called me after the detail, he was filled with anger over the press release. Having worked about 20 of the past 24 hours on the surveillance, my reply was not out of love as it should have been. In my career, I saw many that turned to alcohol and other things to offset their pain. Not one of us is strong or smart enough to get through everything on their own. Mrs. Henry and I are blessed to have a great church family.

If you need to talk to someone, in addition to the programs offered by the state, or perhaps as an alternative, I urge you to find a good Bible-teaching church in your area. There is no shame in asking for help, and true Christians do not judge those that are in need- Jesus taught us about the joy of finding one that was lost in Luke 15:11-32, and told us in Matthew 22:36-40 that after loving God, the greatest commandment was to love one another- and that all of the commandments hung on these two. If you’d like to talk to me, my email address is realid AT liberty2010 dot org. I’m an email junkie mainly due to poor phone service- one of the drawbacks to this rural paradise. If you are in the Tallahassee area, I’m at Calvary Chapel every Sunday morning from about 8:00 AM until 10:30 AM.  If you email me, just let me know in the subject line that it is law enforcement related, as like everyone else I get a good bit of spam email and try to thin it out.

A recent letter to the editor in Jacksonville, where the local government is considering putting up several red light cameras, suggested we needed red light cameras everywhere. In my reply to this letter, I learned some interesting information, and did some comparison and analysis.

Police agencies across Florida submit traffic crash and also crime reports. The crash reports are compiled by the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). The crime reports are compiled by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). I thought it would be interesting to compare the crashes, specifically the ones involving red light violations, with domestic violence violations. Both can result in injury or death, so there is some relevance. My numbers were pulled from the FDLE statewide 2010 domestic violence report located here and the DHSMV 2010 Traffic Crash Facts located here (click either for PDF). The DHSMV report had causes broken down into two sections due to changes in the crash report format. My numbers include totals from both for the red light violations.

Here are the numbers:

• Domestic violence incidents: 113,378
• Traffic crashes: 235,461
• Traffic crashes due to red light running: 6,580 (2.79% of all crashes)
• Domestic violence deaths: 191 (.168% of all incidents)
• Traffic crash deaths due to red light running: 53 (.0225% of all crashes)

Using the justification of safety over rights, with domestic violence numbers such as these, where you are far more likely to be killed as a result of domestic violence than by someone running a red light, why are we not installing cameras inside everyone’s home? Using the oft-heard justification for red light cameras, “Just don’t run the light and you have nothing to worry about”, how about “Just don’t beat your spouse and you’ve got nothing to worry about”.

In addition to domestic violence, we could also prevent residential burglaries, rapes, and murders with these cameras by changing the behavior of the criminals.

Using the red light camera law as a model, we could hold the homeowner responsible, and offer them a reduced fine and keep it off their criminal record if they just paid the fine. We could prevent them from going to court to dispute the fine until they had been charged with a higher fine that went on their record. Of course, they’d be encouraged to say someone else did it to avoid the fine and having to go to court.

Does this make sense to anyone? Anyone at all? I’m certain there are some liberty-killing politicians that would absolutely support this idea.

As a disclaimer, I’m not endorsing putting cameras in everyone’s home. I am illustrating yet again the problems with red light cameras, which have been sold to our local and state politicians as a safety measure. Just as the state will never prevent all domestic violence, they likewise will not prevent all red light violation crashes- which lag far behind other violations that are hurting and killing people. In my experience working both traffic crashes and traffic homicides as well as drunk drivers (I’ll write about one of the more interesting ones soon as part of a tribute to a friend), the people that “blow through” red lights and kill others are drunk or inattentive. In those cases, a camera or a police officer would not prevent the crash.