Acting on the revised statutes, is being allowed on purpose, just as those revised statutes are still being played on in the courts.

Why leave residue behind, when you are cleaning house?

If you are going to do it at all, do it completely.

The "system" is a rotting corpse.

What is the proper thing to do with a dead body?

~~~

A Good Start in [Market-Ticker]
http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229445

A Good Start

It's about damn time.

One of the main reasons for the American Revolution was the arrogance of British officials who searched and raided people’s property at will. To keep that from recurring in the new United States, this language was included in the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”

Grand words, but unfortunately they cannot prevent government officials from engaging in such conduct. Consider the following case.

Florida has a statute requiring that barbers be licensed and it gives the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) authority to enforce it through biennial inspections of barber shops. Two inspectors conducted an inspection of the Strictly Skillz shop in Orlando on August 19, 2010. They found no violations.

But only two days later, DBPR came back to Strictly Skillz, this time with an astounding display of force: eight armed officers, including narcotics agents, some of them wearing masks and bullet-proof vests burst into the shop with weapons drawn. Squad cars blocked off the parking lot. The officers shouted that the customers were to leave immediately and that the shop was “closed down indefinitely.”

Four of the barbers sued, arguing not just that the raid was unconscionable but that the officers had violated their civil rights under color of law or authority and thus were exposed personally to damages.

Note the distinction here, because it's an important one: Suing a police agency or city is all well and good, but you're suing yourself in part, because anything you get comes not from the individual officers involved but rather from the taxpayers!

This is a major problem because there is zero deterrent value to such a lawsuit; it may make you whole but it will never deter further behavior of that sort because the person who does the bad thing never faces any consequence personally.

As expected the officers claimed "qualified immunity" -- that is, that they were immune from personal suit as state actors.

The court disagreed, ruling (properly so, I might add) that when a government actor goes beyond their lawful remit they lose that immunity and are exposed to personal liability.

Good!

Now, all you ****headed pigs in Boston and Pennsylvania who violated (and in the case of PA continue to violate) the rights of hundreds if not thousands of people who had committed no crime and you know it because you think you're entitled to invoke special protections and protocols when one of your own is subjected to a crime that you would never invoke for anyone else and which trample on the rights of all of those innocent people....

Consider this: How would you like to lose your cushy job and pension and, in states other than the few that provide full protection of your residence in bankruptcy, your house?

I hope you think long and hard on that, and for those who have been similarly abused, I hope you sue the magical blue costumes off these jackbooted *******s -- not as an agency but in their personal capacity.

That's what the law provides for, and it's what you should do.