Lawmakers to take up Scott Walker DNA proposal (Good Intentions Bad Policy)

Leave a comment


Madison — Wisconsin lawmakers are set this week to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to take DNA from anyone arrested for a felony and anyone convicted of any crime.

Wisconsin currently collects DNA only from convicted felons and sex offenders. Walker’s executive budget lays out nearly $6 million for the initiative. The money largely would come from an existing $250 surcharge on felony offenders and a new $200 surcharge on misdemeanor offenders.

For starters being arrested for a crime felony or not you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights namely your fourth amendment rights.

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.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong.  Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you.  While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises.  Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes.  Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to.  Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

Advertisements

Letter to Governor Walker and Budget Committee

Leave a comment


My name is Marshall Keith and am an active Tea Party Member.  Your recent action as members of the budget committee is appalling and betrays every principle this country was founded on, namely the right of property and the right to own and run a business. Your action take against RYO machines amount to a regulatory taking without just compensation.

  I have a personal friend who is directly affected by this action, he mortgaged his house to buy two of these machines to the tune of $70,000 dollars. As a result of this he will more then likely lose both his home and his livelihood.

 

Do any of you think that sticking something like this in the budget even closely represents anything even closely related to Due Process?  I remind you all that you swore an oath to defend and uphold both the State and Federal Constitution, are any of you aware of these words from both the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. How about these words from the state constitution  ”The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor”

 The vast majority of you ran on the Republican platform of limited government and individual rights yet use the same tactics that Governor Doyle used to strip property owners the right to use their property and cater to the clientele of their choice and enact what is essentially a “Jim Crow” type law when enacting the smoking ban.  He slipped it into the budget.

 Is this what you mean by limited government and freedom, because to me it seems that we have just replaced one statist regime for another.  I was active in the fight against the Recall against Scott Walker but recent actions, namely Walkers DNA proposal, his endorsement of the Marketplace Extortion Act make me regret that decision.

 Before you claim that it is about the evasion of taxes, it is not.  These RYO shops pay the draconian 70% of list price tax inflicted by the Doyle administration?  If they are considered manufacturers did you exempt them from this 70% tax in favor of the cigarette tax stamp?  Of course not, you caved to the lobbying interest of “Big Tobacco”, the convenience stores and the likes of Smoke Free Wisconsin.

 When election time rolls around again I will be working hard to get every one of you replaced in favor of candidates that actually believe in the principles of limited Government and property rights.

Marshall Keith

Committee Members

Senate Members​ ​Assembly Members
Senator Alberta Darling, Co-Chair​ Representative John Nygren, Co-Chair​
Senator Luther Olsen​ Representative Pat Strachota
Senator Sheila Harsdorf Representative Dale Kooyenga
Senator Joe Leibham Representative Dean Knudson
Senator Mary Lazich Representative Dan LeMahieu
Senator Glenn Grothman Representative John Klenke
Senator Jennifer Shilling Representative Cory Mason
Senator Robert Wirch Representative Jon Richards
Committee Clerk:
Joe Malkasian
Room 305 East, State Capitol
Madison, WI  53702
(608) 264-8314

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

4 Comments


nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

These words were important enough to be included in both the fifth and fourteenth amendments. In the fourteenth amendment it is worded slightly different.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

These words mean very little in modern day “Progressive Wisconsin”. First let’s define “due process.

“The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding.” Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).

“To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been summoned.” Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519 (1880).

“An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

“Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered.” State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).
“Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
“Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
“Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 5d

Now to my story.

In the spring of 2007 I had a house fire. Shortly after the fire the mayor (Gary Bradley) Informed me that he had my house condemned. I told him that I would fight it and consulted an attorney who informed my that they could not do that without serving me so I waited to be served.  Winter came and was not served.  The following spring I was served notice that if I did not work on the house it would be condemned.
Because of the house fire the value should have been reduced and because of the actions of the mayor I was denied the use of my property so I felt that should result in a further reduction. I went to the treasurers office on numerous occasions to complain about this. In the summer of 2011 I learned that the supreme court ruled the law unconstitutional and that assessments could be appealed to the courts.  I sent a letter to the treasurer requesting a hearing on the matter and she forwarded it to the appropriate people. No hearing took place.
On October 1, I was served notice to vacate within 30 days, I was never served notice on the issuance of the tax deed just a notice to vacate.  I refused to leave and told them I would fight it.  The first week of November I was served with an eviction notice which I am currently fighting.. I was blind at the time and could not afford an Attorney.  Through a power of Attorney I offered to pay the taxes and they made it clear to her that they didn’t care about the taxes they just wanted to seize the property. The plaintiff filed a Motion in Limine to suppress the fact that proper notice was not served and the judge granted the motion based on various parts of section 75 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  I filed a motion to vacate based on 75.12 that clearly states that  75.12  Deed, notice of application for.
(1)  No tax deed shall be issued on any lot or tract of land 4 to a tax certificate unless a written notice of application for tax deed shall have been served upon the owner
And 75.12 goes on further to state that that section supersedes all other laws.  75.12(7) (7) This section shall supersede all provisions of law, including the provisions of any city charter, which are in conflict with it.

A hearing was set for August 13th on the motion on August 3 I received notice that the judge
refused to hold a hearing on this issue so I immediately filed paperwork for an appeal. One and a half days latter the sheriffs department locked me out of my home.  So much for “DUE PROCESS”. I AM NOW OFFICIALLY HOMELESS!

When I was growing up we trusted the government to do the right thing. When the housing crisis happened they passed laws making it harder to foreclose on property, yet they passed laws making it easier to steal your property. No notice,no hearing, no due process in any way shape manner or form. A bank is required to serve you notice, there is a mandatory hearing but not so with the government. The tax deed is deemed valid even though it is issued by the same group stealing it THE GOVERNMENT!

When I was a kid I was raised to trust the government.  They were expected to uphold and enforce the laws not suppress evidence that showed that they violated the very laws that they swore to uphold.  The words of Ronald Reagan are more relevent today.

 

MORE FROM REAGAN

 

Smoke Free Wisconsin, Spin Baby Spin

1 Comment


State Stands by Our Kids, Makes RYO Shops Follow the Law

Do you pay taxes? Roll-Your Own (RYO) tobacco companies don’t.

Really? Please, the cigarettes are rolled by the customer not the store! all appropriate taxes are PAID!

By allowing RYO shops to not pay taxes, we give children the idea that sometimes smoking can be okay.

Really again please, these are shops that cater to adults, I do not see scores of children standing in line to enter them. But the real facts are more disturbing. Ask a school aged kid whether it is easier to get a pack of smokes or a bag of weed. You may be shocked by the answer, yet as states impose draconian punitive taxes on the product those same people that sell children weed are getting into, the tobacco business.

WASHINGTON — A recent wave of state tobacco tax increases, designed to pump revenue into cash-strapped local governments, is inspiring an increasingly dangerous cigarette smuggling industry where big profits lure violent criminal gangs and drug traffickers into the booming illegal market, according to law enforcement officials and court records.

And of course there is evidence that it is funding the terrorist that want to kill us and our children.

A new report from the Republican staff of the House Homeland Security Committee says federal and state governments, especially New York’s, must do more to combat cigarette smuggling because its profits fund terrorist entities abroad.

“Recent law enforcement investigations … have directly linked those involved in illicit tobacco trade to infamous terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda,” states the report.

But then they go on to make the claim that it costs the Wisconsin taxpayers money.

When we allow the promotion of unhealthy habits we, in turn, get an unhealthy generation that we have to foot the bill for. In fact, we already pay the price—each year Wisconsin pays $2.8 billion dollars on tobacco health care costs. Half a billion dollars from that cost comes directly from the pockets of Wisconsin taxpayers in the form of Medicaid.

Again Really, do you people remember that the smokers already pay for this through the Master Settlement agreement?

The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered in November 1998, originally between the four largest US tobacco companies and the attorneys general of 46 states. The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs,

And of course you completely ignore the fact that smokers cost less than the non-smokers.

LONDON — Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

My favorite part is where they keep demanding government funding to push their Neo-prohibitionist policies.

Unfortunately, our state keeps cutting funding to the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program, hurting our potential progress in lowering the burden of tobacco on our state

But hey it’s for the children.

For more information on Smoke Free Wisconsin and their ties to big pharma.

For a great piece on the plight of these RYO shops.

For a great documentary on the Progressive Era Prohibition and how closely it matches the modern day progressive era.

Come on Smoke Free, do you have anything that remotely resembles integrity?

Why Scott Walker is Right!

1 Comment


The recent activity in Madison is creating conflict even amongst friends. The pro union people see this as an assault on unions in general. I come from a family that had people on opposite sides of the issue. One grandfather was a Union organizer for the International Association of Machinists who espoused why the unions were necessary and why they came about. The other worked in Management who constantly complained that the unions obstructed him from hiring the best person for the job and how it was almost impossible to get the job done on time because of the unions.

The entire concept of unions was the workers fighting against oppressive employers. If the state or the Federal government is oppressive it is time to replace the government not have a union that protects just a minority of the population.

This is not an attack on unions in general, just public sector unions. Most people don’t realize the lobbying power of labor unions. They also don’t realizes that while the teachers union alone only 45% of the teachers are Democrats yet the teachers yet the union gave 94% of their donations to the Democrats.

 

This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to comprehend. For starters these donations don’t politically represent the due paying members. They are paid by the taxpayers and therefore the dues are paid by the taxpayers. So in essence taxpayers are paying for lobbying efforts that may not be in the taxpayers interest.

Worse yet, collective bargaining is suppose to be an adversarial process. How often do the employees get to vote on who the opposing negotiator will be. If public sector workers were independent contractors hired by the government and competing for the job they would have a legitimate argument but they are not, they are part of the government as government employees so if they strike it is the government striking against the taxpayer.

Even FDR (the patron saint of unions) saw the conflict of interest with public sector unions.

For example, although he had a lock on labor’s vote, he expressed caution about public sector unions. In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

This is not about workers working in a sweat shop here, we are talking about the government and the right of the government to Unionize against the taxpayers.

AGAIN’ IF YOU WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT!

Smoking Ban Economics Cooking the Numbers?

6 Comments


INDIANAPOLIS – A House committee plans to exempt casinos from a bill imposing a statewide smoking ban after an analyst said the state could lose nearly $200 million annually if customers can’t smoke at gambling venues. The Health Committee took more than two hours of testimony on House Bill 1018 and then delayed a vote to next week. But Chairman Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville, said the bill won’t move forward unless the casino exemption is added.

To those of us fighting the ban this is not news. The economic damage has been well known, well at least to those who have paid attention. What was SmokeFree’s response?

Danielle Patterson, chairwoman of the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air, called Landers’ analysis “skewed” and asked lawmakers if they could have a fiscal impact statement prepared by someone less biased.

Even though right from the article “Jim Landers, an analyst with the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency, said studies from Delaware and Illinois show that smoking bans in those states cut casino admissions by 10 percent and wagering by 20 percent.”

I am quite sure that MZ Patterson would prefer one like the Klien study done by anti-smoking activist.

The passage of smoking bans in two large Minnesota cities was not associated with job losses at bars and may in fact have contributed to higher employment in restaurants, according to new research.
The study is the first to examine the economic effects of clean indoor air policies on bars and restaurants as independent types of businesses, the researchers said. Consistent with previous published studies of the economic impact of smoking bans, this analysis did not find significant economic effects on the hospitality industry as a whole.

The Problem with the Klein study and all of the economic impact studies is that it lumps the businesses that are impacted (bars and mom and pop restaurants) in with nationwide chains like McDonalds, Burger King,KFC,Wendys, etc etc etc all of which have not allowed smoking for decades.

Michael J McFadden commented on a blog entry on this study.

The authors of this study had two separate sets of NAICS employment data: Data for bars, AND data for full-service-restaurants. They deliberately chose NOT to publish any analysis on what happened to bar employment.

Some might conclude that they simply withheld such results because it would have damaged the political cause the researchers and their antismoking funders, ClearWay Minnesota, intended to support. There’s an obvious motivation to have performed such a separate analysis since the results, if they went the “right” way, would have made the study’s conclusion FAR more powerful!

Which prompted the blogger to do a followup. Anyone knowledgeable about charitable gambling in Minnesota knows that the vast majority takes place in Minnesota’s bars. This is important to note because Minnesota actually did a study on the impact of the smoking ban on charitable gambling.

Graph taken by study done by the state of Minnesota.

Update 3/30/11

This is a breakdown of the impact done by Micheal J McFadden using the data through 2008.

So when one looks at the impact studies one must closely look at the motivations of those doing the studies or funding them.  Of course all of them done by anti-smoking groups will show no impact, they would not publish a negative study.

While I am sure that the smoking patrons of the Casinos will love the exemptions, what about all of those small mom and pop bars and restaurants that would take the brunt of the economic impact. These Smoke Free orgs have big war-chests and they will negotiate exceptions knowing full well that they will revisit the issue later. But who is looking out for the small business owner? We have seen articles from Michigan and Wisconsin showing the harm done

Comrade EnjoyingTheMichiganBan Farmington, MI

4 Comments


In my blog yesterday I used a Martin Luther King Jr quote and one of the statist/collectivist  from Michigan took offense.

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.~Martin Luther King, Jr

EnjoyingTheMichiganBan Farmington, MIsaid:

So you are equating the essay MLK wrote on the civil rights violations in Birmingham and in the south as being the same as you not being able to spew toxin into the air inside a enclosed area where innocent workers are!

Ignoring the fact that it is OSHA that regulates the health and safety and they found the science severely lacking. I approached this on purely Constitutional grounds.

My response

ABSOLUTELY! He did not call for “civil rights” That is a progressive/socialist term. He called for the equal protection that was supposedly guaranteed to him by the 14th amendment. At no point did he demand to be given “protected class” status and granted more rights then everyone else. Bans deny that same equal protection for property owners. The fifth amendment says nor shall private property be taken for public use without due compensation. The 14th guarantees equal protection. The Supreme court has already ruled that a business does not lose either one of these rights because they invite the public in.

From the Supreme Court!

Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner’s privately owned and operated shopping center to public use …(OUCH there is that public use)..and petitioner’s property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner’s tenants.(double OUCH there is that pesky 14th amendment) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori…

We the Tea Party Patriots and Libertarians demand that the Constitution be restored. Our wishes are coming true. For the first time in history congress actually read the entire constitution aloud. Times they are a changing, you can either join us or get the hell out of the way, but we will restore America and the Constitution and put an end to Statism and collectivism!

Older Entries