e inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Art. I, Sec. 1.

The above is just basic nature and common sense. Our Founding Fathers wrote in our Constitution, "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." Fourth Amendment. There cannot be any such thing as a general search warrant, or the initiation of a fishing expedition. Our Constitution also specifies, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." First Amendment. Of course, the freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak. But notwithstanding these prohibitions against government by the Constitution, it is amazing how government has twisted and subverted the truth so that those who have privacy rights have none, and those who do not, have privacy rights.

I am laying a foundation for a the below Alabama Decatur Daily Newspaper. Therein the court agrees with the public officials on public time, using public computers, that they have the right to privacy when accused of mismanaging funds and embezzling the public. J.A.I.L. says, not so.

Try leaving your own country with your own money without declaring the amount you are carrying to the Security and Exchange Commission. Numerous citizens have tried, and are now serving long sentences in federal prisons because they believed their privacy was an inalienable right, there being no victim claiming the money was stolen from them.

I once asked a tax lawyer friend of mine if the material placed on a 1040 form could be used against the signer in a court of law. He said, "Of course." I then asked him if it would not thus follow that according to due process of law, everyone must be informed that anything they place on that form could be used against them, and therefore they must first be Marandized that they could be arrested, jailed, and forced to appear in court to testify against themselves, in which the information they provided could and would be used against them in a court of law. He said, "Yes, that is correct!" However, it is universally apparent that such due process of law is never placed into practice in America. Rather, everyone is left to their ignorance so that fraud may abound, and no one gets due process of law.

Now, what would happen if you said to the police officer who pulled you over and walked up to your window and asked to see your driver's license, and you said, "Well, that's my personal matter, officer." Aren't we taught that not having a driver's license is a crime? Is he going to inform you that under due process of law, you do not have to produce a driver's license? In reality what is going to happen is the officer is going to ignore due process of law and rely upon your ignorance, asking you to provide him with the evidence he needs to charge you with a crime. And and if you fail to provide him with the incriminating evidence he needs, he is going to take you to jail.

Was this not the same tactic used in Nazi Germany when they forced their captives to "confess" to the crime they committed against the state? A confession of a crime against the state was grounds for imprisonment and torture, and not to confess to a crime against the state was an arrest able offense to which you would be imprisoned and tortured. This is precisely the Nazi practice we are employing here in America. Perhaps we could call it, "Nazism - American Style." Instead of manifesting itself as a red and black swastika, it manifests itself as red, white and blue stripes, adorned with stars, and it is explained to us as "bringing one to justice." After all, are we not a country of "liberty and justice for all?"

An acquaintance of mine was compelled by a judge to take the witness stand in a criminal case against himself. When he arose to be "sworn in," they asked him, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" he responded, "No! I do not!" The judge threw him in jail for answering his question truthfully. Oh, yes, I know there are going to be some of you who will say so me, "Oh, but the judge cannot do that because the Constitution says, 'No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ' " And so it does. But my answer to them is, "You mean you honestly believe that the law is going to govern the conduct of such judges? You've got to be kidding!" It's all a joke conducted in the name of "justice."

On the other hand, let's now look at those who have no right to privacy being granted the right to privacy. When government officials are called to answer before Congress about their misconduct involving their public duties on taxpayer's time and money, they lean toward their attorney, and after a whisper, they then straighten up and say, "On advice of my attorney, I cannot answer that question because it might incriminate me," even if the matter is not criminal. This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). Let me make it very clear, the Five Amendment against self-incrimination does not, nor could it apply to public officials holding a position of public trust. They are carrying out their duties on the public's time, and functioning on the public payroll with the public's equipment. Their position as a public trustee, i.e., a public servant, places them in the same roll of a servant to his master. They are obligated to give account as an accountant would his boss. This is why a employer may install cameras throughout his work place to monitor all his employees without being held liable for violations on privacy issue.

Have you every once heard a Congressman or Senator retort, Mr. Public Servant, this is not a criminal proceeding, nor is it a court prosecution. We are are here exploring the appropriateness of your conduct in public office while you were working as a public servant. We are asking you to give account to those who have hired you. The Fifth Amendment does not apply under these circumstances.

Now let's look at the below excerpts of a story in which government officials are arguing that the newspapers have no right to investigate or question matters of public trust, or to look into matters of government fraud, with the court agreeing with the government official's argument.

-Ron Branson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who owns government office e-mails?

2 Alabama legislators plan to introduce bill addressing complicated issue

By M.J. Ellington

mjellington@decaturdaily.com

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070304/records.shtml

(334) 262-1104

MONTGOMERY — An Arizona county manager accused of buying personal assault rifles and booking an African safari with county money declared his work computer e-mails off limits in an investigation.

The manager said his personal e-mails on his office computer on public time were private and a judge agreed, barring a newspaper’s attempt to look at the records.

In an ongoing Wisconsin case, a public-school teacher accused of using his office computer to solicit sexual contact with children refused to turn over his e-mail records.

In both instances the people accused said their e-mails, sent on public time while on office computers bought with public funds, were private information.

States across the country have questions about who owns the electronic records of people employed in publicly funded occupations and generated on public time and equipment.

Two Alabama legislators expect to introduce — but not necessarily pass — a bill on open records after the Legislature convenes its regular session Monday. Both lawmakers said questions about public access in the electronic age are without easy solutions.

But Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said average citizens should think hard about taking information from public sources out of the public eye. The reasons, she said, are much broader than whether to give reporters access to information somebody wants to be secret for some reason.

“If you have a situation where you have a pedophile using his office computer to make contact with children, do you want that information to be private?” Dalglish asked.

The lawsuit about access to office e-mails on Morgan County government computers may bring the issue close to home, but Dalglish said Alabama is not alone in dealing with the issue. ....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. - Declaration of Independence

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><