* The very famous opening to the old Twilight Zone TV Show.
-
The House That Greed Built
- $ -
Deregulation was the name of the game. The fuel that builds the fire that lives inside... inside the house that greed built; the fire that lights the house and burns the poor and leaves the dead to die alone and remain unburied outside the City, and gives the rich the means to rule and make the laws that eat the planet and ruin our beds and empty our minds and make us fat and keep us sick inside our homes outside the Wall, where we watch TV and warm our hands out in the cold beside the fire lit by fuel that was given for free but at a cost by those who own our dreams and minds and live far off upon Bull Moan, above the wretched house of the working class who have to live with sweating rents and losing ground and giving up and suicides and doing without inside the house that's burning down from the fuel that feeds the fire that lives inside the house they've made, and which we call the house that greed built.
-- :! --
Watch out.
You might get what you're after
Cool babies.
Strange...
but not a stranger;
I'm an ordinary guy
Burning down the house
Hold tight.
Wait till the party's over
Hold tight.
We're in for nasty weather.
There has got to be a way
Burning down the house
Here's your ticket pack your bag:
Time for jumpin' overboard;
The transportation is here.
Close enough but not too far,
Maybe you know where you are
Fightin' fire with fire.
All wet;
Hey you
Might need a raincoat.
Shakedown.
Dreams walking in broad daylight.
Three hun-dred six-ty five de-grees;
Burning down the house
It was once upon a place
Sometimes I listen to myself
Gonna come in first place.
People on their way to work
Baby what did you except
Gonna burst into flame
My house
S'out of the ordinary
That's might
Don't want to hurt nobody
Some things sure can sweep me off my feet
Burning down the house
No visible means of support
And you have not seen nuthin' yet
Everything's stuck together.
I don't know what you expect
Staring into the TV set
Fighting fire with fire.
---
Burning Down The House
The Talking Heads
-
Notes Nailed To A Door, Vols. 5 & 15.
Notes Nailed To A Door, Vol. 15
----
This, from the Dec. 15th, 2014 New York Times:
[Supreme] Court Rules For A Mistaken Police Officer
"WASHINGTON — A police officer can stop a car based on a mistaken understanding of the law without violating the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-1 decision."
------------
sonable Excuse," and now all that is required to arrest innocent people, run them through the legal system, make them pay fines and court costs, all in the name of "I misunderstood the law, judge." Bullshit. Bullshit. Running innocent people through the criminal courts under the guise of a 'Reasonable Mistake' is nothing but another sign of the the systematic erosion of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
All this, on top of a country already infamous for harboring 25% of the world's incarcerated [which are mostly minorities, by the way], while having just 4% of the world's population.
I say that if the Supreme Court seems to have lowered the bar an excellence in the law enforcement community, it ought to grant defendents of "Reasonable Excuse" that same standard of "Reasonable Excuse" in court. After all, everyone knows that we are going to be pulled over much more often now, because an officer no longer needs any viable reason in court. So it would go something like this:
"Your Honor, Officer Jones pulled me over without cause. He initially pulled me over because he did not know the law. I was, in fact, in accordance with the law, as I clearly stated to the officer. He disagreed with me, and then proceeded to conduct a search of my car. Yes, he found four loose prescription pills in my possession, but I tell you, although I told the officer the truth, which can be proven here, which is that those pills were my mother's pills, and that I was keeping them in my purse for her in case she needed them when with me, the officer went ahead and arrested me for violating a law I did not know existed [carrying someone else's prescription drugs, even in quantities as small as one or two pills]. Your Honor, I am respectfully asking the court for a reasonable consideration, and at this time request the court to dismiss this case based on my Reasonable Excuse."
If you think something like this hasn't happened already, you are wrong. And if you think that holding five pills, or two pills, can't get you a fine or time in jail, you are wrong. And if you don't believe me, take a listen to this:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/430/very-tough-love
---------
Here's Amendment IV of the Constitution, first ratified on Dec. 15th, 1791:
"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. "
------
Something that has served us so well for well over two hundred years, kicked to the curb by Roberts and Crew? This Amendment had the blessing of James Madison. George Washington. John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton.
I come away from this wondering if the Supreme Court bothered to take into consideration what it means to tie up some 'mistakenly' arrested Working Class person with court dates, legal fees, and fines??. Working Class jobs will be put at risk by having to appear in court. Also, a Working Class victim of such a law might have to hire a lawyer, or get a psychological evaluation, as I did when I got slapped with a DUI a few years back. This latest Supreme Court ruling is not only terrible for the Working Class; it shows, once again, exactly where the Supreme Court really stands. Sure, people should be allowed some leeway at work. Everyone makes a mistake or two sometimes. But this law encourages outright sloppiness, as well as ignorance. Why study up on the laws that you have been hired to enforce, if you have a Get Off The Hook For Your Ignorance card?
With such an unreasonable ruling, I imagine it won't be long before someone jumps up and says, "Hey! If you're gonna arrest people and cost them all that money and time, the LEAST you can do, once it comes out in court that the officer made a 'mistake', is pay for the victim's legal fees, as well as the victim's lost time at work, and fines, as well as all other fees incurred. After all, this court should never have stooped so low as to force inncent people into supporting your broken legal system. Your Honor, my client demand restitution."
My DUI [ details shown below], which was initially a stop for a seatbelt violation - a reasonable cause, yet I was only one house away from my home - a 'crime' which I was later found innocent of - cost me a night in jail, $1,200.00 in legal fees; a month without a drivers license; an $80.00 court-ordered psychological evaluation, and a $400.00 'resisting arrest' fine.
So what happened at the arrest that earned me a resisting arrest charge? After having felt that I did very well on the sobriety test, the cop said, "You are under arrest. "[DUI.] I said -without raising a finger, "You've got to be kidding me. I'm one house away from my own house. Even if I didn't pass the test, which I think I did great on, I'm only one ho
use away from my own house. I'm not a danger to anyone at this point."
It was caught on tape. The State Trooper - a young, fresh-faced kid about a half a foot shorter than me - had a windshield cam rolling. The cop ran me through a few sobriety tests [which I did very well, as the tape clearly showed in court later]. But there was more on that tape. Must've been the way I looked at him. Who knows? He seemed to panic. The officer grabbed me and threw me onto the hood of his cruiser, pulled my hands behind my back, and began bending my thumbs to the point that I thought that he was going to break them [which I encouraged him to do]. It was all caught on tape, yet the officer's use of excessive force magically turned up missing in court.
----
Nots Nailed To A Door, Vol. 5 [First published on Oct. 14th. 2012]
--
Plaintiff v. Steve Kenny
----
ORDER
This matter came on for hearing on the Petition to Rescind and this Court based upon the evidence and arguments presented finds and rules as follows:
1. In the absence of Frye proceeding, this court does not consider HGN results.
2.The arresting officer stated that the defendant's speech at the stop and in court were similar and this Court agrees with this opinion.
3. The officer testified that the defendant had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath.
4. Defendant admitted a seatbelt violation, which provided the basis for the stop.
5. There was no evidence of impaired or improper driving.
6. The officer's instructions and demonstration as to the Field Sobriety Tests were not detailed.
7. Defendant's performance on the walk and turn test was not perfect, but the video did not display any significant impairment.
8. Defendant did not follow the officer's instruction.
9. Defendant had a hostile attitude toward the officer at the scene of the stop.
10. Defendant's attitude was surly in the video and