Mar2002

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Armed M is a publication of the 2nd Amendment SIG, a special interest group of American Mensa Ltd. Opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the writers, and not of American Mensa, Ltd., which has no opinions. This newsletter is linked to the Mensa web page WWW.Mensa.org as WWW.webcatt.com/2ndAmend_SIG

I have moved and am now in Wilmington North Carolina. My E-Mail address is Smith705@Juno.com. I can always use contributions to the newsletter. If you write something or find something e-mail it to me I'll put it in the newsletter as space and theme allows. Bob Smith -----

I have been having problems with ATT Internet service. They put a sieve on e-mail limiting address to twenty-five. I couldn’t just split the mailing list because by anti virus does not like sending repeat messages. I think I have it all fixed. I was deeply mistaken when I wrote this. I will be using juno who lets me do 50 at a time. Juno doesn’t give me opportunity to do to hide recipient so you will lose some of your privacy. Sorry about that

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Subject: Guns Targeted In Public Health Bill Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:49:41 -0700

The Centers for Disease Control, which calls "gun violence" a public health epidemic, has sent a "model law" to state legislatures which would give state agencies unprecedented powers in the event of a public health emergency -- including the power to seize "private property."

The first draft of the Model Emergency Health Powers Act -- the version introduced in some of the 14 states where it has been filed -- specifically includes the power to "control, restrict and regulate ... firearms ...."

Other sections of the bill authorize seizure and destruction of "private property" and exempt the state from liability.

Specific references to guns and explosives were deleted in the Dec. 21 draft. Both versions can be found on www.publichealthlaw.net, a Georgetown University project funded by CDC.

According to Monday's Wall Street Journal "The post-anthrax goal is to strengthen state authorities to cope with a serious bio-terrorism attack. But the powers could be used in other emergencies -- natural disasters, outbreaks of dangerous flu or viral strains, and chemical or nuclear attacks."

The American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of about 2,400 state legislators dedicated to free markets and individual freedom, has been on point since the bill was announced by a press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Earlier today I talked with Sandy Liddy Bourne who oversees this issue for ALEC. (She's the daughter of old friend Gordon Liddy.)

Sandy said the bill has been introduced in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Virginia!

Yesterday's Washington Times reports that the Transportation Department, as instructed by Congress, is developing rules to be followed in developing "smart" drivers' licenses that will include fingerprint data and could allow the government to track citizens electronically.

Since most of the citizenry has drivers' licenses, that's clearly going to become a de facto national identification card. The big question is going to be how much data it holds and who can access it.

Speaking of the Transportation Department, President Bush has made a recess appointment of John Magaw -- former head of Secret Service and BATF -- to the key role of Undersecretary of Transportation for Security.

Ironically, although gun owners have been raising Cain about the appointment, his confirmation was being blocked by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin -- who is no friend of gun owners.

Magaw, working for former anti-gun Congressman Norm Mineta, will call the shots on allowing pilots to be armed, as authorized by Congress in the Aviation Security Act.

______________________________________________________________________________________

A spate of gun-armed robberies and killings has shocked the United Kingdom, and caused British newspapers and BBC to cite the tremendous increase in gun crime since the ban on legal handguns following the Dunblane, Scotland kindergarten killings.

An Associated Press article today, datelined London, reports: "Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals. According to a recent survey, the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased nationally from 2,648 in 1997-98 to 3,685 in 1999-2000. 'The underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all,' he said."

So...We want to know: Does Yoko Ono, like Rosie O'Donnell and probably other anti-self-defense proponents, employ any armed guards? Whom do the anti-gunners call when a crime is being committed against them?

And of course, if total gun bans worked, then Washington D.C. would be the safest city in the country, and Jamaica would be the safest country in the world. (See http://www.jpfo.org/bord.htm for more on this.)

(Incidentally, there's a story going around that members of Congress, of both House and Senate, are exempted from D.C.'s draconian gun ban, and that they are permitted to keep guns in their offices. If anyone out there knows anything about this, please let

"When you disarm your subjects you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you." Niccolo Machiavelli "The Prince"

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress - the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

January 18, 2002 ALERT: Armed Citizen Helped Stop Law School Killer

"A 43-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Nigeria, went to the Appalachian School of Law on Wednesday to talk to his dean, L. Anthony Sutin, about Odighizuwa's dismissal for failing grades, officials said. He shot Sutin and professor Thomas Blackwell, who taught Odighizuwa's contracts classes, with a ..380-caliber pistol, authorities and students said. Also killed was student Angela Dales, 33..."

We at JPFO express our anger at the killer, our sympathy for the survivors of the three persons killed and for those three others who were gravely injured, as well as to all those who grieve and suffer with them.

Before this story becomes recorded as "another senseless school shooting" that "proves why handguns should be banned," we think everyone should know the whole story. Thanks to Robert Waters, author of _The Best Defense_ (www.robertwaters.net), we received the link to the MSNBC report that states:

"Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, officials said."

"We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter," Tracy Bridges, who helped subdue the shooter with other students, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."

In other words: an armed student helped stop the killer. At this point we don't know whether the attacker (Peter) decided to stop before or after he saw the armed student, but we do know that the student Tracy Bridges:

(1) Was prepared for defense by being armed
(2) Had the presence of mind to obtain the weapon when it was needed most
(3) Would have been capable of stopping the attacker if some other means (tackling, etc.) had failed
We at JPFO salute that student, Tracy Bridges, for having the foresight to be armed and for the courage to use the firearm to save lives. Tracy Bridges exercised the right to keep and bear arms the way that every competent non-violent American should feel proud to do.

We needed four Tracy Bridges on September 11, 2001 -- armed.

Subject: NID: [FP] Cal. Police Can Search Car for ID's OOPS -- there goes another rubber tree plant KERPLUNK!!! What was it that old piece of paper said - something about being secure in our papers? Oh, yeah, the FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - guess California isn't covered by the US Constitution.

Amendment IV 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.

____________________________________________________________________________________

State Court Backs Police on Searches Rights: Justices split sharply in 4-3 ruling allowing car inspections for license, registration. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-012502search.story

SAN FRANCISCO -- Police in California may search cars if a driver fails to produce a license or registration regardless of whether the officer has a warrant, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court, in a 4-3 vote, sided in favor of law enforcement despite sharply worded dissents declaring that such searches violate the U.S. Constitution

Justice Joyce Kennard, one of the dissenters, suggested the ruling may have been motivated by security fears stemming from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"As this opinion is being written, our nation is undergoing a painful recovery from the devastating physical and psychological effects of that day," Kennard wrote. She said the ruling "does nothing to enhance our security and does much to erode our 4th Amendment rights."

California courts previously have allowed police making routine traffic stops to search for licenses and registrations in glove compartments and under visors. The Supreme Court's decision Thursday approves for the first time searches under the seats of cars and elsewhere when there is no reason to believe a crime has been committed, lawyers in the case said.

Other courts have also given police more freedom in dealing with motorists. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month reaffirmed that police have extensive leeway in determining when to stop motorists and that they may rely on innocent-looking actions as grounds for their suspicions.

The state high court's majority, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, reasoned that police can look for documents in a vehicle to determine the identity of the driver and the owner of the vehicle. The decision upheld two police searches in Orange and Solano counties in which drugs were found under car seats and the drivers were prosecuted for possession.

"Limited warrantless searches for required registration and identification documentation are permissible," George wrote, when the officers look for documents "in an area where such documents reasonably may be be expected to be found."

George contended that allowing such searches would be less intrusive than arresting a motorist for driving without a license. He also noted that it would not be permissible to search a car trunk unless the officer had reason to believe the documentation was in there.

Voting with George were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming W. Chin and Justice Carlos R. Moreno, whom Gov. Gray Davis recently appointed to fill a vacancy left by the death of Justice Stanley Mosk in June. Mosk frequently sided with defendants in police search cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in a case involving the kind of circumstances before the California court, although some high courts in other states have upheld searches for vehicle registration.

The three dissenting justices sharply accused the majority of violating the U.S. Constitution by creating a "blanket" exception to warrant requirements.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the majority erred in saying that the space beneath a driver's seat is a reasonable place to keep vehicle registration. She also noted that driver's licenses are not usually kept under a car's seat and contended the Constitution prohibits car searches for licenses.

"Nothing--not the Constitution, nor any statute nor the cases cited by the majority--authorizes police to conduct a warrant less vehicle search in an attempt to discover the license of a driver who asserts he or she does not have it in the car," Werdegar wrote.

If a driver fails to produce a license, the officer can run the driver's name on a computer, ask the driver to submit a thumbprint, accept another form of identification or arrest the driver, she said.

"By what logic," she asked, "would a police officer believe that searching a vehicle for a person's driver's license would be fruitful when the driver has just informed the officer that he does not have a license in possession?"

Kennard, joined by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, discussed "the horrendous events of Sept. 11" and asked whether anyone would ever be able to forget them.

Part of the recovery has been to create more security for citizens but "an equally important part" should be a "rededication to the principles upon which our nation was founded," Kennard wrote.

She predicted the ruling "may well result in limitless searches throughout a vehicle whenever a driver cannot produce the requisite documentation." -[snip]-

From: Clarence Young [orphanman@surfbest.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:22 AM

I understand that my liberty is the result of my minding my own business and not harming others or their property.

Many of you have probably heard about the controversial gun law passed in Kennesaw, Georgia in 1982. It stated that every head of household be "required maintaining a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."

Soon after the law was established loopholes were created that could allow some to be excluded from the law. Those who are exempt are people with physical or mental disabilities and those whose religious beliefs prohibit them from doing so.

The explanation for this law was simple: "In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants" (see the city of Kennesaw's official site for the entire ordinance).

After the ordinance was passed the ACLU immediately took action by taking it to court as "un-constitutional"; they failed in their plea to have the ordinance removed. Many said that it would cause "rioting in the streets and the murder rates would go through the roof." How wrong they were.

Quite the opposite took place in Kennesaw, Georgia. The crime rates plunged, reaching unheard of lows! According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, in 1981, Kennesaw had 54 burglaries with a population of 5,242. In 1999, with a population increase up to 19,000, only 36 burglaries were reported! That’s over 81% per capita decrease in burglaries!

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones, who wrote The Law Heard 'Round the World - An Examination of the Kennesaw Gun Law and Its Effects on the Community, said that following the law's passage, "the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to a 10 percent drop statewide." What is the explanation of this incredible decrease in crime? As Ronald Reagan would say, referring to peace at a national level, "Peace through Strength." The Soviets weren't going to risk their own necks when they knew that America was ready and willing to fight back. The same principle can be applied to the local level as well; criminals see it the same way as the Soviets did. They aren't going to risk their necks when they know that there is a high likelihood that their intended victim may be carrying a .45 and willing to use it. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Think of what the results would be if similar laws were passed all over the country. If we go by the statistics of Kennesaw we would see 1,660,456 less burglaries every year! Imagine the impact that this would have not only on the potential victims but also on the entire nation! Not to mention the decrease in all violent crimes including murder, rape, and aggravated assault.

While it would be very optimistic to say that we would receive the same results nation-wide as they did in Kennesaw, it would bring the crime rate down, as Kennesaw's statistics prove.

Don't just think of this as numbers but as people. Think of it as your next-door neighbor, your wife or daughter, or even yourself. Laws like this could prevent tragedies likes these from ever happening to your loved ones. Consider all those that it would protect.

At the same time many cities have been calling for their citizens to "turn in all hand-guns". This is not required, but the whole idea is absolutely ridiculous! Do the bureaucrats really think that criminals are going to return their handguns? All this does is hurt the average citizen. It unarms the good citizens, while doing nothing to those who keep guns for criminal activity, thereby empowering criminals! The fewer citizens with guns, the more bold and forceful the criminals become.

In 1999, the city of Atlanta attempted to sue gun makers, seeking compensation for costs incurred from gun violence. Atlanta's lawsuit was put to an end when Gov. Roy Barnes signed into law a bill that makes Georgia the first state to prohibit its cities and counties from taking gun makers to court. Former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell, who adamantly supports such lawsuits, calls the law unconstitutional and says the city plans to pursue its suit, which accuses 17 gun makers of negligently designing firearms with inadequate safety devices and warnings.

It's time to stop pursuing worthless and costly ways to prevent crime and go by what we know works. During WWII Winston Churchill said, "You can always count on the American's to do the right thing - but only after they exhaust all other options." Well, I would say that we've about exhausted all other options. Let's go with something that has proven results. Kennesaw, Georgia should be an example to us all. We should all strive to have similar laws passed in our own cities. Lobby your local town council. Get a petition signed by local citizens saying that they are in favor of such a law.

It's obvious that our government isn't going to fix the problem of crime. It 's time the American citizens step up and fight crime.

GUN CONTROL - They're not getting quite as much press as they used to, but the Brady bunch and a whole pile of other tyrannical gun sissies are still out there, and brother you can take that to the bank. The communists at the U.N. demand the latest in automatic weapons protection for themselves while promising you and me an endless supply of Nerf Balls for our own defense. Between drunken family gang rapes, that great big empty head known as Ted Kennedy, and his Bill of Rights ignorant pals, continue to harangue us about how dangerous legal gun owners are because they pretty much take care of themselves and mind their own business, and they'd pretty much appreciate it if the bottom-feeding politicians would do the same. When not making movies that continue to glorify new lows in violence, substance abuse, rape, racially motivated murder and depravity in general, the self-absorbed denizens of Hollywood spew their ignorant venom at law-abiding gun owners at every opportunity. All of these nanny-state promoters claim disarming me will make everybody else safer and that's where dumb old me gets confused. Back in '97 England took handguns away from everybody in the name making them safe, and here's what's happened since then:

Crimes involving guns have TRIPLED according to the London Metropolitan Police. In Merseyside there were 57 shootings during the year ending last December, compared to 15 in the same period the year before. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner says "gun gangs" are spreading across the country, whereas previously they were confined to the poorer sections of London. According to Commissioner John Stevens, " The price of hiring or buying a gun has come DOWN because there are MORE guns circulating." According to England's own Home Office statistics, crimes involving ILLEGAL handguns are at their highest level since 1993!

Before the idiots in Washington and the scumbags in Hollywood start demanding my disarmament, I suggest they move to England, rent a cottage in Dorking on Percy or someplace, and try defending themselves with the hot air they're spewing. I'm just too dumb to pass a security test at the airport so I guess I'll have to stay here and defend me and mine the old fashioned way, with my God given and Constitutionally approved right to own guns!

THE DEA - Pronounced: GESTAPO. I'm so sick of these velcroed storm-troopers I could puke! When, oh when will Americans ever admit to themselves that this government goon squad is completely out of control? They violate the civil rights of anyone, answer to no one and claim it's all in the name of "protecting" everyone! The war on drugs is conducted like a drunken frat party and the nanny-state feebs who support it are supplying the booze in the form of ever more Fourth Amendment violating laws. If the DEA is supposed to protect Americans, will somebody please explain this Denver Post story to dumb old me?

Out in Colorado last month some DEA thugs, along with some Colorado Bureau of Investigation wanna be thugs, kicked in the door of a social worker and his school teacher wife. At gunpoint, of course, they put them on the floor and then they kicked their K-9 American across the room! After trashing the couple's home they took the couple's two college student sons into custody and didn't release them for 40 hours. Now here's the part where I get confused: According to the couple's ACLU attorney, "they had NO search warrant, NO arrest warrant and NO other legal authority."

So, even if these blowholes had had the right house, the break-in and search would have been illegal! Now here's the REALLY scary part. Other than Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and every jackass on Capitol Hill, can you imagine a trio more PC than a social worker, a school teacher and an ACLU lawyer? If stuff like this can happen to people like this, what the hell's goin' to become of the likes of me? I don't own a dog and my kids are out on their own! Does this mean I get kicked an' arrested instead? Will the ACLU rush out to defend a 52 year old idiot white man? Will you feel safer knowin' me an' my Margaret are in the pokey? Since the AMA defines alcohol as a drug, will everybody in America get arrested next time they pop a cold one in the privacy of their own home? If usin' drugs makes ya a terrorist, how come most everybody in Hollywood ain't sittin' in the yard in Cuba? It's a puzzler for an ol' fool like me fer sure, an' just another reason it ain't easy bein' me.

Minority Mike, aka Michael J. Bates, can be reached at thunder_foot@hotmail.com. His wife, Margaret, helps him with the big words in the letters you write him.

>Read this letter from Dell and think about the following: They say they are neutral on the issue of the 2nd Amendment from the US Constitution. I do not enjoy that luxury. I served 9 years in the United States Army and served 39 months in SEA between 1959 and 1968. My adopted son is an SF team commander and he is currently deployed and in combat against Al Qaida, and he risks all as we speak.

>Therefore, while people are fighting and dying far away for DELL's right, among others, to SAFELY make and market computer technology to the world with no interference, Dell is neutral on the Constitution which protects their rights to do business.

>Dell is not neutral, it is disloyal and treasonous. Where on earth to they think our military and police get their firearms if not from research and design, experimentation, innovation and training not unlike that which Weigand presents? Research, design and manufacture, secured by the Right of Self Defense and firearms ownership.. The presence of arms and arms training in this country is ALL that allows Dell to operate unhindered. A company that lacking in core values and knowledge of the Constitution and the past and present sacrifices under arms made by American soldiers so as to allow Dell to continue undisturbed is no less than treasonous, no matter how they claim to be Neutral. That claim is buzzspeak for morally bankrupt. Dell is the computer mfg version of S&W, and as dicey as their margin is in the current market atmosphere, they can be hurt by individuals boycotting them. I will. Joe Horn

>> We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the facts regarding a customer > issue reported in the media and Dell's position on political or social > issues that many of you care deeply about. > Regarding Handgun Rights/Handgun Control.... > Dell is a publicly-traded, customer-focused company with customers, > shareholders and employees on both sides of many public, social and > political issues. Our place is to serve our customers rather than to endorse > or support one position over another in public debates outside the scope of > our industry. > We do not discriminate against any business, regardless of the products or > services they sell, nor do we discriminate against individual customers. We > do, however, respect the right of any organization or individual to have > their own point of view. We follow all laws, rules and regulations. > Regarding allegations that Dell supports Handgun Control organizations > through the Dell Affiliates program... > Dell as a company remains neutral on handgun rights and handgun control. > Dell customers can support causes and organizations, if they choose, through > Dell's affiliates program and charitable websites such as igive.com and > progressivefunds.com. These sites feature links to Dell's website. Dell's > affiliates program provides a way for customers to support the cause or > organization of their choice through their Dell purchases. Affiliate > participants, such as igive.com and progressivefunds.com, include > organizations and causes on different sides of nearly every social issue.

>> Some of the organizations participating through Dell affiliates such as > igive.com and progressivefunds.com., promote handgun rights, others promote > handgun control. Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) has been reported as one > organization that participates in this program. Others including The Gun > Owners Foundation and the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners > Foundation, Inc. also participate through Dell affiliate igive.com. > The only organizations prohibited from participating in Dell's affiliates > program are those that promote sexually explicit material; promote violence; > promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, > disability, sexual orientation or age; or promote illegal activities. > Regarding the assertion that Dell cancelled Mr. Jack Weigand's order for a > notebook computer because of his firearm association...

>> We made a mistake. Mr. Weigand's order was improperly cancelled because we > did not gather the additional information required by U.S. law to process > his order. Dell flagged Mr. Weigand's order (initiated under his company > name Weigand's Combat Firearms) for additional follow-up (and then we failed > to do so) because of the word "combat" in his company name. This internal > control is in place to ensure that a domestic purchase is not redirected to > an end user for a prohibited use (such as the creation and development of > weapons of mass destruction) or to a country that has been restricted from > receiving U.S. technology exports (such as Libya, Syria, Iran and Iraq).

>> This due diligence is required by U.S. law. We also review orders for words > such as "nuclear," "missile," and "plutonium." Dell's process excludes > reviews for "guns" or "firearms." > The mistake was ours because we failed to follow our process. We failed to > call Mr. Weigand for information that would have satisfied legal > requirements and ultimately would have resulted in completion of Mr. > Weigand's transaction. We have apologized for this mistake directly to Mr. > Weigand. We have tried to make it right with our customer by offering him a > free computer (which he declined to accept) for his trouble and > inconvenience. > Dell has many customers and employees who are handgun owners and > enthusiasts. We know that gun owners and advocates, such as Mr. Weigand, are > law abiding Americans, and as such, can understand and appreciate our > efforts to comply with American export laws, while serving all customers.

>> We have heard from many of you over the last few days, and we appreciate the > opportunity to speak with you directly about these issues. Your > relationships with us, and your feedback about our products and services are > crucial to our success.

>Now pause for a moment and consider that last statement: Is it true? "Well," you say, "I'm not planning on committing any crimes - not serious ones, anyway. But I suppose it's conceivable that I could be charged with something whether I did it or not, and in the current climate of 'zero tolerance' and extreme profitability to police agencies in seizing property and sending people to jail, it could happen. So the statement is true: evidence could determine my fate in a court of law."

>Wrong! Evidence doesn't determine anything: PEOPLE who INTERPRET evidence call the shots. While this may seem like a nitpicking distinction, it is crucial to the understanding of how "legal" rights have gone far toward vanishing in an area you may not have thought much about.

>To an increasing degree, evidence is an abstraction far removed from the normal experience of the human beings who comprise juries. Thus the jury system, like all other aspects of statism, has migrated toward even further authoritarianism - in this case toward the reliance on the unseen, the indecipherable, or the incomprehensible, as delivered as fact by "expert witnesses". Consider for an example of this, reliance on DNA "evidence", which is growing by leaps and bounds. No one can see DNA directly - the molecules are so tiny that they are smaller than the waveforms or graininess of light itself, so they are in principle invisible. In order to "see" them, you have to bombard them with electrons or other subatomic particles, or "observe" or test them by other indirect means. Such evidence as that involving DNA is purely a matter of announcement of conclusion by laboratory workers. Recent alleged developments, however, permit the finding and analysis of DNA on all kinds of handled objects: coffee mugs, pens, keys, gloves, doorknobs, etc. Soon it may be "possible" to "detect" DNA particles adhering to air molecules as a result of those molecules' contact with a person's lungs.

>This is profoundly troubling, because it involves judgments by privileged elites, that are merely sent for blind ratification to the jurors who provide a socially acceptable facade. The already grave authoritarianism of the judicial system thus becomes quietly displaced by one in which ordinary people are puppets dancing on the strings of those who profess to see unusual things hidden from all view but theirs. In short, you have to take their word for it, and in a society that is shot through with propaganda to induce reverence toward authority figures, extremely large numbers of people will indeed blindly take their word.

>Even where no malicious intent is present, so-called experts are prone to errors or the subconscious slanting of their own views due to preconceptions on their part, or subtle cues emanating from others. A classic instance of error induced by experts themselves, who didn't realize they were doing it, was the case of Clever Hans, a supposedly learned horse belonging to a Mr. von Osten, in Germany around 1900. Robert Rosenthal, of Harvard University, has briefly outlined the matter this way:

>"Hans gave every evidence of being able to add and subtract, multiply and divide... He was also able to read and spell, to identify musical tones, and to state the relationship of tones to one another. His preferred mode of communication... was by means of converting all answers into a number and tapping out these numbers with his foot.

>"...No...signals could be observed to control Hans's tapping responses. In fact, on Sept 12,1904, thirteen men risked their professional reputations by certifying that Hans was receiving no intentional cues from his owner or from any other questioner. "The investigation of Hans's abilities is a classic. First (the investigator] established that Hans was, in fact, clever, and that his cleverness did not depend on the presence of his master. Almost anyone could put a question to Hans, and the chances were good that an accurate answer would be forthcoming. The experimental addition of blinders reduced Hans's cleverness. [And when] questioners asked questions to which they did not know the answers, ...Hans's accuracy diminished."

>Eventually it was discovered that extremely slight unconscious cues given off by ordinary people were reflected in the "answers" of the horse; and an experimenter in fact learned how to "read" people in this manner himself. The case has enormous significance in light of recent use by police of "drug dogs" to locate alleged contraband - which at times consists of residues so faint that they may well be imaginary - and many arrests appear to be based on "probable cause" that reduces down to "evidence" no different from that in the Clever Hans case.

>Ordinarily, people think of fingerprint evidence as exact, scientific, unmistakable, verifiable. Such evidence rests, supposedly, on the statistical reality that it is highly unlikely for any two individuals to have exactly the same prints. Therefore, if I am to show that fingerprint evidence is not necessarily all that it's painted as being, I have to assure you that I am not claiming that people here or there exist who have fingerprints identical to each other. (For all anyone knows, there may really be some such persons, but, again, the odds are tremendously against it.)

>However, it is difficult to define what is meant by "identical". Due to the nature of the surfaces printed onto, as well as the elastic (flesh) surfaces that impart the prints, considerable variation in the print from any particular finger is to be expected. For this reason, as well as the fact that some persons' prints may actually be very similar to each other, the likelihood of existence of virtually indistinguishable prints shoots far past the smiling picture of statistical certitude drawn by the propagandists for fingerprint identification.

>Beyond this, the unlikelihood of identicality is based on sets of ten-finger prints - and while a full set was originally required in courtroom evidence, increasingly today we find that a single print is being regarded as conclusive. This boosts the possibility of similarity even more. (Note that banks and driver's license bureaus which people are forced to deal with, are requiring but a single print - not all ten.) Single prints, usually of the right index ringer or thumb, are being used currently to check the identity of persons applying for jobs, seeking certification as day-care workers, tow-truck drivers, or nursing-home staff. These send millions of prints into the identification system, and false matches are becoming common. Further downgrading the supposed exactitude of fingerprint identification is the surprising fact that some people have no fingerprints (friction ridges) at all: according to Jim Wayman, director of the National Biometric Test Center at San Jose, one out of 50 people - not one out of a billion, not one out of a million, or one out of a thousand, but one out of FIFTY - has smooth fingers with no friction ridges, or with ones that are all but absent.

>In case you're still confident that most people nonetheless do have quite clear prints which are obviously distinct from one another, ponder these words from a fingerprint textbook:

>"How to compare fingerprints: What factors must be present for one to declare that two prints were made by the same finger?

>"The court and jury are usually not familiar with fingerprint evidence, and must of necessity rely upon the honest judgment of

>the witness. As a law enforcement officer, it is your obligation first to convince yourself that two prints are identical before you testify to that fact in court."

>Think about this. You must "convince yourself." Let's say you were being asked to compare two numbers in a logarithmic table, say 3.91202, and 3.93183. You either see and understand, and KNOW, that they are different, or you don't; but there is no matter of "convincing yourself". Quite clearly, fingerprint identification is by no means as cut-and-dried as recognition of mathematical identity. The text goes on:

>"As you know, many latent impressions are worthless smudges, while many are clear, easily identified prints. Between these two extremes will be prints whose clarity, or lack of it, makes a positive pronouncement of identity difficult. When such an impression comes up for identification, unless you are sure in your own mind beyond a reasonable doubt... then by all means do not testify to their identity."

>Right here is where the "science" of fingerprint identification seems to pass into the realm of Clever Hans subjectivity. It would be hard, if not impossible, for a fingerprint "expert" who believed totally in the identity of two prints (as a result of other factors, including bias or persuasion), to refrain from slanting his own mental picture of the prints and their alleged similarity.

>"If the fingerprint technician should look at the known print before the unknown one, he is bound to be influenced, whether he realizes it or not, by the ridge formations in it. ...He may unconsciously see in the unknown print formations which were clearly visible in the inked print but which may not be clear in the latent impression. We do not mean to infer [sic] that he would do this with any dishonest intention. It is just human nature to do so, and may even occur without the technician's knowledge."

>"Many experts won't take a case into court with less than twelve characteristics" [print similarities] "but there are many cases on record in which convictions have been obtained with eight to ten. There have been cases in which the jury accepted as conclusive proof an expert's opinion with only six ridge characteristics showing..."

>Biometrics - the branch of anthropology concerned with measurement of the human body - was the forerunner of fingerprint studies, but, strangely enough, measurement is not of much use in the comparison and classification of fingerprints. Instead, the study of these patterns focuses on the particular ways in which the ridges of skin whorl or loop or arch around each other. Elastic deformation - the tendency of a pliant surface to bulge or stretch according to the amount of pressure on it - results in variant prints from any particular finger. More skin surface, or less; fewer friction ridge characteristics, or more, will result as the touch of a finger exerts varying force against the surface that will eventually exhibit the fingerprint. Excessive force of touch may reveal more of the detail toward the sides of the finger while obscuring that of the middle.

>And, at this point, the mechanics of transfer of finger prints exhibits much in common with ordinary printing, as of ink on paper.

>letterpress), metal type having a relief surface was contacted by an ink-bearing surface, usually a roller. As the image portion or face of the type took on ink, paper pressed against this type subsequently was left with a printed image on it. Type, however, unlike the friction ridges and flesh of fingers, deforms very little under pressure. Nevertheless, even type - metal type - is capable of delivering a vastly differing impression under differing conditions of pressure and on hard or soft papers. A typeface that looks spindly and weak if printed on a smooth-surfaced paper, may look robust and bold when printed with much greater pressure on a spongier surface. Indeed, it might be difficult even to say with certainty whether two separate images were produced from the exact same piece of type. As years went by, various means of printing more rapidly and conveniently were introduced, and some of these involved the transfer of images in ink, not from metal type, but from metal, rubber, or plastic plates or surfaces. Here we begin to approximate more closely the curved and/or flexible printing surface of skin, and here too we run into the tremendously equivocal nature of the image when it is printed from a soft plate, onto a soft paper, with varying amounts of pressure. Now it becomes almost impossible even for an expert typographer to identify a typeface, or to tell the difference between two typefaces, when the printing has been done under less than ideal conditions or by unskilled or careless pressmen.

>Fingerprints, you will note, are almost never set down at some crime scene under any BUT poor conditions or in any other way than extremely carelessly.

>In commercial printing, even with presses explicitly designed to deliver the best possible impressions from the most carefully-made plates, fairly great quantities of wasted sheets are produced as a print-run is gotten underway. Blurry, smudgy, under-inked or over-inked copies emerge from the press for some time before all the factors settle down into the proper balance of ink film, transfer pressures, and temperature. Fingerprints, meanwhile, produced haphazardly with no equipment whatsoever and with no attention paid to exerting proper pressures, are popularly supposed to be models of clarity that detectives can photograph and compare as if they were variant texts of a book. In reality, obviously, the proportion of the "prints whose lack of clarity makes a positive pronouncement of identity difficult," must be rather great. In fact it seems likely that this would be the overwhelming majority of prints, and that far more instances of police identification of prints are really statements of probability, than anything approaching certainty. They are opinions.

>A further departure from truly scientific accuracy comes with the comparison of fundamentally dissimilar samples. Formal fingerprinting, as done to persons in custody or to those who for one reason or another voluntarily submit to the procedure, consists of taking rolled prints - ones in which the entire friction-ridge surface of the end joint of the finger is rolled to create a complete print. Obviously, fingerprints inadvertently left a some scene will seldom, if ever, reveal all of the same features. A serious but never discussed implication is buried in these facts; and that is that while every human being's prints may well be different from every other's, surely there are bound to be certain sections that are identical - and the comparing of some small portion of a print by person X with a large number of full portions in rolled prints of many other persons, may well result in a mismatch. This is reducible to a mathematical formula which can be stated in language as: The smaller the sample that is compared to a primary object, the greater likelihood there is of a correspondence.

>An illustration of this principle can be made by supposing that some play of Shakespeare be compared against the present issue of The Match, in its totality. Obviously they will be entirely dissimilar. Now compare some isolated short sentence from this journal to every sentence in Shakespeare: there may or may not be two that are exactly the same, but at least the odds will now be tremendously greater in favor of a correspondence. Finally, if you selected some pair of words and then hunted all through the Bard's work for them, odds would approach 85% or higher that you'd find that identical couple. At a single word the odds would rise still farther, and at individual letters of the alphabet the odds would, of course, be precisely 100%.

>So far, in this discussion, I've been willing to assume that persons comparing fingerprints were merely hampered in giving precise, true answers about identity, by the somewhat equivocal nature of Fingerprints themselves. I've assumed that those persons, usually police, were individuals of honesty and goodwill, and that any errors were only the ones that anybody might make. However, my views are considerably at variance with such a naive belief, and now it is time to ask: Can Fingerprint evidence be deliberately distorted or contrived in order to show an identity where there is none - or, in other words, to produce "evidence" that will allow conviction of an innocent person?

>The answer to this is an emphatic Yes. For all the reasons heretofore outlined, there is much room for latitude of interpretation in some cases about some prints. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for fingerprints to be manufactured, or left at some scene that a defendant never visited, and this is an opinion that I back up with 27 years of experience in graphic arts and printing-related study. Transference of actual prints made by real fingers, from one location to another by means of sticky tape, is one possibility, with techniques long known to law enforcement officers. However, I am here concerned with the actual reproduction of prints, by mechanical or photo-mechanical means.

>Can a fingerprint be reproduced? A printing plate, carefully enough made, can easily contain far more detail than necessary to duplicate the print from a human finger. Compared to the amount of detail in a halftone plate for printing a photograph, for instance, where the plate must hold information on about 40,000 dots per square inch, the reproduction of a fingerprint is a relatively trivial matter.

>Nor does it involve carrying a printing press to some crime scene and printing someone's print on a window ledge there in order to implicate him or her. Instead, it could be done by a contrivance like a tiny rubber stamp.

>The possession by anyone of your fingerprints opens the door to such a possibility. How many times this may have been done in the past is something we will never know, but there are certainly evidences of it. Clifford Skeete, formerly a criminologist with the Inglewood California police department, became a fugitive in 1990 when a report concluded that he had manufactured evidence against a suspect by superimposing a fingerprint onto a murder weapon. What method he used has not been revealed, but in this instance the deception was discovered before trial, and officials were reluctantly re-examining all other cases he had handled.

>R. Austin Freeman, a chief surgeon in the throat and ear department of Middlesex Hospital, London around the 1890's, later became the Deputy Medical Officer of Hollaway Prison in London - and later, when his health broke down, he turned to writing. His first novel appeared in 1907 and used a plot device that he'd obviously been turning over and over in his mind through his medical experience in the hospital and prison: the forging of a fingerprint. Unfortunately I've been unable to locate this novel, so do not know what method he had decided was workable; but I cite this instance to show that some minds have been pondering such possibilities for a long time.

>Modern plastic materials probably provide the widest array of possible substitutes for authentic fingers and friction-ridges, that ever existed. Photo rubber plates for printing use, for example, now may be obtained in a variety of hardnesses (or softnesses), some of which are practically indistinguishable from that of flesh. Anyone with access to a set of black-and-white fingerprints of some person could without much trouble arrange to have negatives made, from which photographic rubber copies would be exposed and developed. Pressing such copies against an inked flat surface and then "touching" some object with them, would result in an inky fingerprint on that object. If instead of ink one used skin oils or any of the other substances that commonly appear in real fingerprints, such as blood, paint, motor oil, etc., the resulting print would be indistinguishable from that left by the original human hand.

>Whether or not you believe that fingerprint evidence may be as fallible as I've suggested, I hope that this brief criticism has at least introduced a doubt about ANY statements that must be taken on faith. The journey of ten thousand miles does indeed begin with a single step; and the effort to build a free world in some far distant future begins here and now with the first brick: mistrust of, and skepticism toward, every tenet, principle, action, procedure, policy, or justification of coercive authority.

> SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 11. In a foretaste of what could await the defendants in the DEA's medical MJ raids, a Sonoma County patient, Keith Alden, was summarily convicted of marijuana cultivation in the first federal jury trial of a medical cannabis grower in San Francisco. The proceedings were a travesty of justice, as Alden was effectively precluded from presenting any real defense. Alden had been growing some 300 plants, ostensibly for medical use by himself and other patients. This being in excess of Sonoma's guidelines, his case was handed over to the feds for prosecution. Turning down the advice of his public defender, Alden rejected a plea bargain offer and naively chose to represent himself in court. In accordance with federal law, Judge Martin Jenkins rigorously excluded any mention of medicine, illness, medical marijuana or Prop. 215 at the proceedings. The court smiled condescendingly as Alden struggled with the rules of evidence and strove vainly to defend himself against the US government Leviathan. Alden unsuccessfully tried to inform the jury of the medicinal nature of his marijuana garden. He called a witness, David Brew, to testify as to the kinds of persons who frequented his

> Alden also called on MMJ patient Allen MacFarlane, who was acquitted in a Prop 215 cultivation case last year. Was MacFarlane aware of other visitors at the house? "Yes, I was aware of other individuals like me with cancer or AIDS..."

> The Judge angrily cut off MacFarlane, dismissed the jury, and reprimanded the witness for having "slipped in a gratuitous remark." "The issue of any use of marijuana is not relevant for this proceeding," the judge warned. "You are aware Mr. McFarlane you may be incriminating yourself? Do you want an attorney?"

>you had some of the plants under your control?" "I can't answer" said MacFarlane, invoking the Fifth Amendment "they threatened me." The latter remark provoked yet another reprimand from the judge.

> The train of injustice rolled on inexorably to the closing statements, where the US Attorney neatly laid out all of the evidence: that marijuana was growing at Alden's residence, that Alden had freely admitted to growing it himself, and that agents had counted some 313 plants, well over the 100 limit that Alden was charged with exceeding.

> Alden tried to explain the issue to the jury. "You know why I was growing whether it was brought in evidence or not..."

> "Objection sustained," interjected Judge Jenkins, sternly warning that the jury must decide on the evidence actually presented.

> Alden continued, "How could I be in violation of federal if I'm in compliance..."

> Alden turned to the jury. "My contention is the evidence you have isn't really evidence of a crime - no crime was committed that day. The truth lies in what wasn't brought in..."

> The judge sternly reminded the jury to consider only the evidence presented, helpfully reminding them that "marijuana is a controlled substance in Schedule One."

> The jury was young and looked frankly sympathetic to marijuana, but had hardly an inkling of what was transpiring. Their guilty verdict came as no surprise. Alden was convicted of manufacturing over 100 plants (a 4 - 5 year minimum). He is appealing to the Ninth Circuit.

> The conviction was a tour de force for the government, coming as it did the day before Asa Hutchinson's visit and the DEA's raid in San Francisco. It will take some masterful defense lawyering to breach the iron curtain of federal law and present a real defense for future medical marijuana defendants.