No, people do not lose their individuality at work, but they should have a resonable understanding of their use of corporate resources, and most HR departments issue employee handbooks that spell this out, including any monitoring of computing or network resources that may take place.
As for being "tricked", only a fool would consider equipment not their own to respect their privacy wishes without engaging in some due diligence: either establishing a VPN to trusted equipment, or carefully examining the trust anchors the equipment they use has installed.
A better complaint might be to question the use of such equipment in public access networks, with forged CA certs. Proper practice would have a captive portal explaining policy, and using a clearly non-standard resigning CA that had to be explicitly accepted. But still, it is ultimately the user's responsibility to establish due diligence with regard to network security.
There is nothing inherently nefarious about resigning SSL traffic. In fact, in the public access scenario it helps thwart drive-by virus attacks and other malware through secure web sessions, at the expense of end user privacy. Do what us "in the know" do: set up a VPN to trusted servers.
In any case, the problem only arises when using equipment administered by others wirh prior installation of the trusted resigning CA cert: your own equipment, lacking the cert would CLEARLY indicate signing by an untrusted source. That strikes me as an appropriate balance: you have no expectation of privacy using someone else's computer!
Wrong: behind our corporate router, it's our network. The users are in our employ. That's the reasoning.
And the notice is in the trusted certs installed on the client PCs.
End to end security was in place AS FAR AS THE CORPORATE ORGANIZATION IS CONCERNED. Security from the standpoint of the employee is a different issue that the employee has to take up with the employer.
Do you really think your corporate network traffic is secure from your employer? It's easy enough for you to check, you know.
HTTP Proxy, SMTP Proxy "encrypted traffic" features. (There was also an HTTPS proxy, but all it did was drop connections to destinations on a blacklist by domain name as specified by the certificate the remote server provided: it did not decrypt, reencrypt, and resign).
It properly IS a proxy since it proxies the traffic for you. Whether you consider that a MITM attack on encrypted traffic depends on whether you trust the proxy or not.
SSL does not prevent MITM attacks: it just makes MITM mangling of encrypted traffic discoverable. IF the "man" is "your man" (or your employer's man) then it presumably is not an attack.
Realize the target audience of vendors of procducts like these: IT managers who want to "protect" against malicious traffic, whether encrypted or not. Of course we can only do that as a MITM. But they way they see it, all network connections "inside" are "theirs", so our box is "their" man in the middle. Often they are clueless and just ask salesmen "Does it work with HTTPS and SMTP/STARTTLS and SMTP/SSL?" without knowing what that means, only that encrypted traffic is "difficult" to scan.
There are non-nefarious uses for this: SPAM and virus filtering of encrypted email and blocking of undesirable encrypted web content.
As for being a mini-NSA, the appliances that I helped develop to do this did not allow unecrypted traffic to leave the box (unless we were deliberately doing ingress SSL-termination), though theoretically someone could hacl the box to do this.
The best way to assure users of such a proxy that their content is not being monitored is to disclose the make, model, and confiuration of the appliance and, short of a hacked appliance, decide for themselves if the plain text content is constrained to be in the appliance.
Oh, we also did SPAM filtering on encrypted email with this capability.
There are non-nefarious reasons for an organization wanting to do this, though it clearly compromises end-to-end security if either end does not trust the organization deploying it.
At a former employer, we produced firewall hardware where this was SPECIFICALLY available as a feature. In fact, I developed the software for it. The certificates provided by the external servers are resigned by a CA cert installed on the appliance which is accepted by client machines behind it. Our equipment allowed the option of generating an internal CA cert, which would then be exported to all clients; generate a Certificate Signing Request, which could be signed by a CA already trusted by clients and imported back to the appliance (if the organization had it's own PKI infrastructure); or allow a resigning certificate and key to be imported.
The justification is simply this: "Our network, our traffic."
The practical reasons for this are to permit the firewall to do virus scanning on encrypted web pages and email (I handled SMTP STARTTLS and SMTP/SSL as well).
At least as far as the work I did went, there was no official way to take the plain text traffic off the appliance - it was not "designed" to snoop on employee traffic, though if someone managed to hack the appliance this would be theoretically possible.
Of course, if you are a contractor or employee concerned about the confidentiality of your traffic, you should exercise due diligence with regard to the CA's your machine trusts.
In our case, we DID have the capability to specify domain names for which this resigning would not be done: those that were "trusted" by the organization installing the firewall. This made it possible to go the extra mile and make some banking site traffic secure end-to-end, but it was on a site by site basis.
As I recall, I left the employ of this company prior to SNI support ever being implemented (we barely supported TLS 1.1, and certainly not TLS 1.2 when I was there, much to my protestations, and SNI is a TLS 1.2 Client Hello extension).
The appliance could also be used in a reverse-fashion: protecting web servers (but not virtual ones, for lack of SNI support, unless they shared a domain name), where it could just do SSL termination, with the site-specific certificate (presumably signed by a CA trusted by most browsers), though we allowed resigning here as well, in the event the internal traffic had to remain encrypted.
A terrorist is someone who acts to frighten the public at large, often with the aim to incite political pressure on the government to stop doing whatever it is they do to which the terrorist objects.
A citizen shooting at their government is not a terrorist, but rather a rebel.
Employees can not use employer insurance subsidies to purchase Obamacare, only insurance through their employer. The exemption in question specifically permits members of congress to do just that: use their employer's (that is us, via our tax dollars), insurance subsidy to purchase Obamacare.
They could have at least tried to obscure this with a commensurate (taxable) pay increase, but as so bold as to not even both with the faintest attempt to hide their corruption.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
There was a (bad) horror movie along this principle: people dying in their sleep from no known cause. Apparently, if people believed that "shadow people" were out to get them, a negative placebo effect would take place, and they'd actually die from the belief alone.
The protagonist trying to expose the phenomenon was convinced, at the last moment, not to, lest an epidemic result.
And in my area that gets you a static IP and you can run whatever server you want. They do prefer that you don't run open relays on port 25, but that's reasonable.
I'd be fine with prosecuting Bush. On the right, Feinstein supports ripping up the second amendment, and McCain sought to have NDAA include a provision for indefinite detention AFTER acquital by a jury.
I think this administration has done plenty to warrant impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors), but a charge of treason involves giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Benghazi sticks out on that one, and I am anxious to see more facts and detail emerge.
It isn't so much whether the administration was complicit, but whether they lied, and how much. NSA director Clapper has already put his foot in his mouth on that one in the domestic spying Verizon scandal and is close to being found guilty of perjury. If they have nothing to hide, why are the stories inconsistent and changing?
I may very well be wrong in seeing an ominious pattern where there is none. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But, I do think it's appropriate to raise the question, to challenge the administration when things don't smell right, and, above all, to NOT fear reprisals, even if they may be believed likely: for my part I noticed (a) a break in to my Facebook account (with nothing really of value or interest there) and (b) access to private hyperlinks referenced there from "interesting" IP addresses. I fully expect that I am on some "list" now.
I don't care. Perhaps I will be "disappeared". IF, and I note IF, that happens, to me, and enough others, then perhaps it would not be for naught, and people might start to wake up.
Paranoia? Perhaps, but I think in a healthy dose. Silence, and fear, on the other hand, always play into the hands of tyrants.
I've lived 51 years, most of them O.K., and a few very well.
I'd be quite willing to die on my feet rather than live under tyrany on my knees. Somehow, either beats becoming infirm and dying of old age. On this issue, I thinks heads should roll. The responsible people (all, of them, Republican and Democrat alike), should be found out, tried for treason, and if found guilty, commensurately punished, to send a message to future politicians about who serves whom.
So, without further ado, and to certainly attract the attention at the good folks at the Secret Service:
What to do about a treasonous president
1. 218 (50%+1) of the 435 representative members of congress vote to imeach. 2. 67 (2/3) of the 100 Senators vote to convict. 3. 1 President is removed from office and is now subject to criminal prosecution. 4. 23 members of a grand jury indict him to stand trial for treason (Benghazi certainly qualifies: ordering troops to stand down when Americans are under attack?). 5. 12 members of a jury convict and sentence him for treason. 6. One disgraced, former president.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat with all the other traitors, and send a message to "politicians".
It's an easy process to remember: 218 67 1 23 12, almost like a phone number: (218)671-2312.
I am not afraid, of criticism, of torture, or of death.
She was Canadian. We had a marriage contract, executed in Quebec, CA. Unlike WA, "prenuptual agreements" have no weight there: marriage contracts are notarized, and can cover performance (who does what household duties) as well as assets. It required whoever does not work outside the home to maintain the home, raise the kids, etc. If both worked outside the home, we were to support the household in proportion to our incomes. Standard fare.
Well, she didn't. I remained faithful, but withheld certain "perqs" of marriage.
When she cheated, I figured I had the moral right to divorce her lazy ass. What I didn't realize was that, under WA law, her cheating gave her the right to have me thrown out of my own home, lest I be arrested, on the grounds that she was fearful that I might find out and get violent. So that I might support our kids, I left freely. Of course, that was construed as my abandoning our kids, so I had no chance at custody in the divorce. I regained it after she was found neglectful of them.
That marriage contract? Because it wasn't a prenup, it held no legal weight, precisely the reason we got a marriage contract instead of a prenup in the first place!
After the divorce, she was held in contempt for not selling the house she could not pay the mortgage on (for which I remained responsible, but with her having to make the payments, and I having a power of sale that I ended up exercising). When she lost custody, she alleged I never paid child suport for our son (I threw in an extra $100 a month for an allowance). The state hassled me for the money EVEN AFTER I provided canceled checks with her endorsement on them! I had to hire a lawyer to get them off my back.
But, the problem here isn't what she did as much as the laws that let her get away with it. And, for my part, I was stupid for having married her in the first place.
Then again, in the end, the kids were placed with me, with sole legal custody as well.
Well, it was a deputy prosecuting attrorney for Snohomish County in February/March 2010. I'll leave it at that.
As we had negotiated a plea bargain for a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in order to dispose felony asault on a minor charges, there are no grounds to sue.
I thought about it: here I was, carrying a screaming child into a store, with the child yelling, "Help, he is killing me. He is kidnapping me". A passerby might certainly think it was true and assault me. One standard for "disorderly conduct" in WA is doing something that invites assault. The classic example is uttering a racial epithet. As much as I thought I had done nothing wrong, the law is the law, and should I not like it, my options are to petition to have it changed. The standard met, I pled guilty to DC, and moved on with my (successful) petition for primary residential and sole legal custody of my kids. The judge in that case praised my choice to remove uncertainty about my being subject to future prosecution.
I had other options. I could have taken him back to his mother. I could have gone to the police with him and his shoes in bad shape. I could have called CPS. At the time, I thought anyone could see that this child was neiher being choked (he was screaming at the top of his lungs), and certainly not being killed. If police responed, the situation could have been made clear. I did not count on his hurting himself in vengeance so as to allege abuse, or his mother acting on it.
So, at this point it is best to (a) let it go, but (b) share how "the system" works, so others might be wary.
These days, local police know of his history of alleging abuse when he has some privilege revoked for bad behavior.
Bullshit. To myth24601 as well. I'll address his/her point first.
Charges rarely get "dropped". Cases simply don't get pressed. Felony arrests can be prosecuted up to five years later in many places (WA, for one), once sufficient evidence is obtained to make a case. The constitutional prohibition against being placed in double jeapardy means prosecutors only get one kick at the can, unless the same evidence can be repackged under a different charge.
In 2010, when my ex had custody, my son was hungry. As she hardly ever fed our kids, she let me take him to dinner, and wrote a permission slip (as I did not have visitation rights that day, and insisted on one). Well, she let the poor kid out, in February, with one shoe having the sole completely flop off. I told him, either before or after dinner, I'd get him new shows. He chose after dinner. Well, after dinner, he wanted to go home to mom, and I feared she'd have police waiting to illustrate the "poor footwear" that "I" had on him. So, I took him to Payless for those shoes first.
My son has issues. He suffers from Conduct Disorder (Oppositional Defiant Disorder in his younger days, that psychologists and psychiatrists have not been able to stem). In order for him to not run into traffic, I had to carry him into the store, all the while him screaming "He's choking me! He's killing me! Help, he's kidnapping me!" I handed a worker one shoe, asked, for a matching pair, got them paid, and took him home to his mother. Unbeknownst to me, on the way, he brusied himself with his seatbelt buckle.
He alleged I struck him, she called police, they interviewed store staff ("He was choking and trying to kill the child he was kidnapping"), and there was plenty of probable cause to arrest me for felony assault of a minor. I spent four days in jail before being able to post bail. Getting to one's own money behind bars is surprisingly difficult: banks won't release it to attorneys without a notarized power of attorney, and while your lawyer can visit you in lockup, a notary might be made to wait weeks. Lawyers are generally not permitted for front bail monies, because the offer can be used as a incentive to force an attorney-client relationship under duress.
Well, the case against me fell apart: he refused to testify, and his mental illness came to light.
Were the charges dropped?
No.
I got custody of my kids 18 months later, but to remove the uncertainty of a possible felony prosecution over the next 3-1/2 years, I had to get the original charges disposed. Despite not prosecuting me, the DA refused to drop the charges unless I pled to "something". I chose disorderly conduct (as someone might have thought I was actually kidnapping my son, and assaulted me: in WA, acting in a manner that might invite assault is disorderly conduct), and paid a $1200 fine. The original charges were disposed.
All this is public information. I could not hire a nanny for my son through nannies4hire.com because of my arrest record. But, and this addresses the AC: I had no trouble getting a new job some years later. Decent employers research things like this.
I thought about this and think it justifies citizens' right to bear arms to include nukes: so long as the jackbooted things don't back off, we periodically (every few minutes we're holding out), kill a million or so who did not come to our aid, and therefore supported the unlawful government act.
The proper thing for these parents to do is organize, arm themselves, head down to the school administration buildings, and kill every official, employee, and agent in sight. If the school board members are not there, hunt them down, and kill them too.
No doubt, that would result it an armed SWAT response, arrests, and deaths.
It would not be legal.
But, it would be proper, and therefore should be legal. Specifically, it should be an affirmative defense against the charge of murder that the slain (a) be an (1) elected member of government, (2) employee or (3) other agent thereof; and (b) (1) had committed, (2) passed into law, or (3) supported the passage into law of (c) an unconstitutional measure that (d) was (1) applied, or (2) applicable, to the accused. In this case, the students', and by extention their parents' fourth amendment rights were violated.
Governments are supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people and be their servant, not the other way around.
The founding fathers didn't go far enough with the second amendment. They had the right idea, that in extremis, armed rebellion against a tyrannical state was justified. But, they failed in thinking a separation of powers and enumerated restrictions on government powers, would be sufficient to ward off that necessity. So, now we are left with a society that has no idea when to take up arms against the state, save the vague notion of "when enough others do". And so, we just sit and look at one another. When the time comes (and, it will), the response will not be a gentle local reminder of who's the boss, but rather a widespread revolution that runs a clear danger of leaving a power vacuum, as revolutions tend to do.
It would have been far better for there to be a "rulebook" as it were, that clearly enumerates, but not in an exhaustive sense, when to kill an agent of the state.
Government is best viewed as a beast of burden: useful for a time, but to be put down when it has outlived it's usefulness, or otherwise become ornery.
Trust no agent of the state who is not willing to enumerate a number of actions that, if they undertook, would justify their killing under the affirmative defense of protecting constitutional rights.
Radical? Obviously, I don't think so. Affirmative defenses are not legal "walks in the park". They shift the burden from the state having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the accused having to prove innocence under the specific affirmative defense shield, having admitted to comitting the act under consideration.
I can attest to that, having escaped Canada for the U.S.
I is also illegal to spend your own money to save your own life: everyone has to be on the same government health plan, "to be fair". Cuba and North Korea are the same.
Slashdot Mirror
No, people do not lose their individuality at work, but they should have a resonable understanding of their use of corporate resources, and most HR departments issue employee handbooks that spell this out, including any monitoring of computing or network resources that may take place.
As for being "tricked", only a fool would consider equipment not their own to respect their privacy wishes without engaging in some due diligence: either establishing a VPN to trusted equipment, or carefully examining the trust anchors the equipment they use has installed.
A better complaint might be to question the use of such equipment in public access networks, with forged CA certs. Proper practice would have a captive portal explaining policy, and using a clearly non-standard resigning CA that had to be explicitly accepted. But still, it is ultimately the user's responsibility to establish due diligence with regard to network security.
There is nothing inherently nefarious about resigning SSL traffic. In fact, in the public access scenario it helps thwart drive-by virus attacks and other malware through secure web sessions, at the expense of end user privacy. Do what us "in the know" do: set up a VPN to trusted servers.
In any case, the problem only arises when using equipment administered by others wirh prior installation of the trusted resigning CA cert: your own equipment, lacking the cert would CLEARLY indicate signing by an untrusted source. That strikes me as an appropriate balance: you have no expectation of privacy using someone else's computer!
Wrong: behind our corporate router, it's our network. The users are in our employ. That's the reasoning.
And the notice is in the trusted certs installed on the client PCs.
End to end security was in place AS FAR AS THE CORPORATE ORGANIZATION IS CONCERNED. Security from the standpoint of the employee is a different issue that the employee has to take up with the employer.
Do you really think your corporate network traffic is secure from your employer? It's easy enough for you to check, you know.
HTTP Proxy, SMTP Proxy "encrypted traffic" features. (There was also an HTTPS proxy, but all it did was drop connections to destinations on a blacklist by domain name as specified by the certificate the remote server provided: it did not decrypt, reencrypt, and resign).
It properly IS a proxy since it proxies the traffic for you. Whether you consider that a MITM attack on encrypted traffic depends on whether you trust the proxy or not.
SSL does not prevent MITM attacks: it just makes MITM mangling of encrypted traffic discoverable. IF the "man" is "your man" (or your employer's man) then it presumably is not an attack.
Realize the target audience of vendors of procducts like these: IT managers who want to "protect" against malicious traffic, whether encrypted or not. Of course we can only do that as a MITM. But they way they see it, all network connections "inside" are "theirs", so our box is "their" man in the middle. Often they are clueless and just ask salesmen "Does it work with HTTPS and SMTP/STARTTLS and SMTP/SSL?" without knowing what that means, only that encrypted traffic is "difficult" to scan.
There are non-nefarious uses for this: SPAM and virus filtering of encrypted email and blocking of undesirable encrypted web content.
As for being a mini-NSA, the appliances that I helped develop to do this did not allow unecrypted traffic to leave the box (unless we were deliberately doing ingress SSL-termination), though theoretically someone could hacl the box to do this.
The best way to assure users of such a proxy that their content is not being monitored is to disclose the make, model, and confiuration of the appliance and, short of a hacked appliance, decide for themselves if the plain text content is constrained to be in the appliance.
Oh, we also did SPAM filtering on encrypted email with this capability.
There are non-nefarious reasons for an organization wanting to do this, though it clearly compromises end-to-end security if either end does not trust the organization deploying it.
At a former employer, we produced firewall hardware where this was SPECIFICALLY available as a feature. In fact, I developed the software for it. The certificates provided by the external servers are resigned by a CA cert installed on the appliance which is accepted by client machines behind it. Our equipment allowed the option of generating an internal CA cert, which would then be exported to all clients; generate a Certificate Signing Request, which could be signed by a CA already trusted by clients and imported back to the appliance (if the organization had it's own PKI infrastructure); or allow a resigning certificate and key to be imported.
The justification is simply this: "Our network, our traffic."
The practical reasons for this are to permit the firewall to do virus scanning on encrypted web pages and email (I handled SMTP STARTTLS and SMTP/SSL as well).
At least as far as the work I did went, there was no official way to take the plain text traffic off the appliance - it was not "designed" to snoop on employee traffic, though if someone managed to hack the appliance this would be theoretically possible.
Of course, if you are a contractor or employee concerned about the confidentiality of your traffic, you should exercise due diligence with regard to the CA's your machine trusts.
In our case, we DID have the capability to specify domain names for which this resigning would not be done: those that were "trusted" by the organization installing the firewall. This made it possible to go the extra mile and make some banking site traffic secure end-to-end, but it was on a site by site basis.
As I recall, I left the employ of this company prior to SNI support ever being implemented (we barely supported TLS 1.1, and certainly not TLS 1.2 when I was there, much to my protestations, and SNI is a TLS 1.2 Client Hello extension).
The appliance could also be used in a reverse-fashion: protecting web servers (but not virtual ones, for lack of SNI support, unless they shared a domain name), where it could just do SSL termination, with the site-specific certificate (presumably signed by a CA trusted by most browsers), though we allowed resigning here as well, in the event the internal traffic had to remain encrypted.
It's not supposed to be a currency: prisoners are all supposed to be fed the same thing and are not allowed to swap or trade items.
I don't know where this choice of "popular" comes from: if you don't want to eat something, it gets discarded after being served to you.
No.
A terrorist is someone who acts to frighten the public at large, often with the aim to incite political pressure on the government to stop doing whatever it is they do to which the terrorist objects.
A citizen shooting at their government is not a terrorist, but rather a rebel.
Wrong.
Employees can not use employer insurance subsidies to purchase Obamacare, only insurance through their employer. The exemption in question specifically permits members of congress to do just that: use their employer's (that is us, via our tax dollars), insurance subsidy to purchase Obamacare.
They could have at least tried to obscure this with a commensurate (taxable) pay increase, but as so bold as to not even both with the faintest attempt to hide their corruption.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
-- U.S. Constitution, Article III, section 3.
So... bullshit.
There was a (bad) horror movie along this principle: people dying in their sleep from no known cause. Apparently, if people believed that "shadow people" were out to get them, a negative placebo effect would take place, and they'd actually die from the belief alone.
The protagonist trying to expose the phenomenon was convinced, at the last moment, not to, lest an epidemic result.
And in my area that gets you a static IP and you can run whatever server you want. They do prefer that you don't run open relays on port 25, but that's reasonable.
If Obama's arming of al-Qaeda friendly rebels in Syria isn't "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid...", I don't know what is.
Why do you hide beind AC, then?
I'd be fine with prosecuting Bush. On the right, Feinstein supports ripping up the second amendment, and McCain sought to have NDAA include a provision for indefinite detention AFTER acquital by a jury.
I think this administration has done plenty to warrant impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors), but a charge of treason involves giving comfort and aid to the enemy. Benghazi sticks out on that one, and I am anxious to see more facts and detail emerge.
It isn't so much whether the administration was complicit, but whether they lied, and how much. NSA director Clapper has already put his foot in his mouth on that one in the domestic spying Verizon scandal and is close to being found guilty of perjury. If they have nothing to hide, why are the stories inconsistent and changing?
I may very well be wrong in seeing an ominious pattern where there is none. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But, I do think it's appropriate to raise the question, to challenge the administration when things don't smell right, and, above all, to NOT fear reprisals, even if they may be believed likely: for my part I noticed (a) a break in to my Facebook account (with nothing really of value or interest there) and (b) access to private hyperlinks referenced there from "interesting" IP addresses. I fully expect that I am on some "list" now.
I don't care. Perhaps I will be "disappeared". IF, and I note IF, that happens, to me, and enough others, then perhaps it would not be for naught, and people might start to wake up.
Paranoia? Perhaps, but I think in a healthy dose. Silence, and fear, on the other hand, always play into the hands of tyrants.
Yes.
I've lived 51 years, most of them O.K., and a few very well.
I'd be quite willing to die on my feet rather than live under tyrany on my knees. Somehow, either beats becoming infirm and dying of old age. On this issue, I thinks heads should roll. The responsible people (all, of them, Republican and Democrat alike), should be found out, tried for treason, and if found guilty, commensurately punished, to send a message to future politicians about who serves whom.
So, without further ado, and to certainly attract the attention at the good folks at the Secret Service:
What to do about a treasonous president
1. 218 (50%+1) of the 435 representative members of congress vote to imeach.
2. 67 (2/3) of the 100 Senators vote to convict.
3. 1 President is removed from office and is now subject to criminal prosecution.
4. 23 members of a grand jury indict him to stand trial for treason (Benghazi certainly qualifies: ordering troops to stand down when Americans are under attack?).
5. 12 members of a jury convict and sentence him for treason.
6. One disgraced, former president.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat with all the other traitors, and send a message to "politicians".
It's an easy process to remember: 218 67 1 23 12, almost like a phone number: (218)671-2312.
I am not afraid, of criticism, of torture, or of death.
She was Canadian. We had a marriage contract, executed in Quebec, CA. Unlike WA, "prenuptual agreements" have no weight there: marriage contracts are notarized, and can cover performance (who does what household duties) as well as assets. It required whoever does not work outside the home to maintain the home, raise the kids, etc. If both worked outside the home, we were to support the household in proportion to our incomes. Standard fare.
Well, she didn't. I remained faithful, but withheld certain "perqs" of marriage.
When she cheated, I figured I had the moral right to divorce her lazy ass. What I didn't realize was that, under WA law, her cheating gave her the right to have me thrown out of my own home, lest I be arrested, on the grounds that she was fearful that I might find out and get violent. So that I might support our kids, I left freely. Of course, that was construed as my abandoning our kids, so I had no chance at custody in the divorce. I regained it after she was found neglectful of them.
That marriage contract? Because it wasn't a prenup, it held no legal weight, precisely the reason we got a marriage contract instead of a prenup in the first place!
After the divorce, she was held in contempt for not selling the house she could not pay the mortgage on (for which I remained responsible, but with her having to make the payments, and I having a power of sale that I ended up exercising). When she lost custody, she alleged I never paid child suport for our son (I threw in an extra $100 a month for an allowance). The state hassled me for the money EVEN AFTER I provided canceled checks with her endorsement on them! I had to hire a lawyer to get them off my back.
But, the problem here isn't what she did as much as the laws that let her get away with it. And, for my part, I was stupid for having married her in the first place.
Then again, in the end, the kids were placed with me, with sole legal custody as well.
Well, I am not in jail and I have primary residential and sole legal custody of my kids.
Make of that what you will.
Well, it was a deputy prosecuting attrorney for Snohomish County in February/March 2010. I'll leave it at that.
As we had negotiated a plea bargain for a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in order to dispose felony asault on a minor charges, there are no grounds to sue.
I thought about it: here I was, carrying a screaming child into a store, with the child yelling, "Help, he is killing me. He is kidnapping me". A passerby might certainly think it was true and assault me. One standard for "disorderly conduct" in WA is doing something that invites assault. The classic example is uttering a racial epithet. As much as I thought I had done nothing wrong, the law is the law, and should I not like it, my options are to petition to have it changed. The standard met, I pled guilty to DC, and moved on with my (successful) petition for primary residential and sole legal custody of my kids. The judge in that case praised my choice to remove uncertainty about my being subject to future prosecution.
I had other options. I could have taken him back to his mother. I could have gone to the police with him and his shoes in bad shape. I could have called CPS. At the time, I thought anyone could see that this child was neiher being choked (he was screaming at the top of his lungs), and certainly not being killed. If police responed, the situation could have been made clear. I did not count on his hurting himself in vengeance so as to allege abuse, or his mother acting on it.
So, at this point it is best to (a) let it go, but (b) share how "the system" works, so others might be wary.
These days, local police know of his history of alleging abuse when he has some privilege revoked for bad behavior.
The statute of limitations on class C felonies in WA is five years.
All my communications with the DA were through my attorney.
Sue to get them dropped? Unlikely. There was probable cause for an arrest (the standard for which is very low).
Bullshit. To myth24601 as well. I'll address his/her point first.
Charges rarely get "dropped". Cases simply don't get pressed. Felony arrests can be prosecuted up to five years later in many places (WA, for one), once sufficient evidence is obtained to make a case. The constitutional prohibition against being placed in double jeapardy means prosecutors only get one kick at the can, unless the same evidence can be repackged under a different charge.
In 2010, when my ex had custody, my son was hungry. As she hardly ever fed our kids, she let me take him to dinner, and wrote a permission slip (as I did not have visitation rights that day, and insisted on one). Well, she let the poor kid out, in February, with one shoe having the sole completely flop off. I told him, either before or after dinner, I'd get him new shows. He chose after dinner. Well, after dinner, he wanted to go home to mom, and I feared she'd have police waiting to illustrate the "poor footwear" that "I" had on him. So, I took him to Payless for those shoes first.
My son has issues. He suffers from Conduct Disorder (Oppositional Defiant Disorder in his younger days, that psychologists and psychiatrists have not been able to stem). In order for him to not run into traffic, I had to carry him into the store, all the while him screaming "He's choking me! He's killing me! Help, he's kidnapping me!" I handed a worker one shoe, asked, for a matching pair, got them paid, and took him home to his mother. Unbeknownst to me, on the way, he brusied himself with his seatbelt buckle.
He alleged I struck him, she called police, they interviewed store staff ("He was choking and trying to kill the child he was kidnapping"), and there was plenty of probable cause to arrest me for felony assault of a minor. I spent four days in jail before being able to post bail. Getting to one's own money behind bars is surprisingly difficult: banks won't release it to attorneys without a notarized power of attorney, and while your lawyer can visit you in lockup, a notary might be made to wait weeks. Lawyers are generally not permitted for front bail monies, because the offer can be used as a incentive to force an attorney-client relationship under duress.
Well, the case against me fell apart: he refused to testify, and his mental illness came to light.
Were the charges dropped?
No.
I got custody of my kids 18 months later, but to remove the uncertainty of a possible felony prosecution over the next 3-1/2 years, I had to get the original charges disposed. Despite not prosecuting me, the DA refused to drop the charges unless I pled to "something". I chose disorderly conduct (as someone might have thought I was actually kidnapping my son, and assaulted me: in WA, acting in a manner that might invite assault is disorderly conduct), and paid a $1200 fine. The original charges were disposed.
All this is public information. I could not hire a nanny for my son through nannies4hire.com because of my arrest record. But, and this addresses the AC: I had no trouble getting a new job some years later. Decent employers research things like this.
I thought about this and think it justifies citizens' right to bear arms to include nukes: so long as the jackbooted things don't back off, we periodically (every few minutes we're holding out), kill a million or so who did not come to our aid, and therefore supported the unlawful government act.
1. Yeah, Barack Obama says he can kill any American if he does not know whether he poses a threat or not.
2. I don't know if Barack Obama poses a threat to me.
3. Sadly, instead of "Profit!" I rather see either a predator drone or Gitmo in my future.
The proper thing for these parents to do is organize, arm themselves, head down to the school administration buildings, and kill every official, employee, and agent in sight. If the school board members are not there, hunt them down, and kill them too.
No doubt, that would result it an armed SWAT response, arrests, and deaths.
It would not be legal.
But, it would be proper, and therefore should be legal. Specifically, it should be an affirmative defense against the charge of murder that the slain (a) be an (1) elected member of government, (2) employee or (3) other agent thereof; and (b) (1) had committed, (2) passed into law, or (3) supported the passage into law of (c) an unconstitutional measure that (d) was (1) applied, or (2) applicable, to the accused. In this case, the students', and by extention their parents' fourth amendment rights were violated.
Governments are supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people and be their servant, not the other way around.
The founding fathers didn't go far enough with the second amendment. They had the right idea, that in extremis, armed rebellion against a tyrannical state was justified. But, they failed in thinking a separation of powers and enumerated restrictions on government powers, would be sufficient to ward off that necessity. So, now we are left with a society that has no idea when to take up arms against the state, save the vague notion of "when enough others do". And so, we just sit and look at one another. When the time comes (and, it will), the response will not be a gentle local reminder of who's the boss, but rather a widespread revolution that runs a clear danger of leaving a power vacuum, as revolutions tend to do.
It would have been far better for there to be a "rulebook" as it were, that clearly enumerates, but not in an exhaustive sense, when to kill an agent of the state.
Government is best viewed as a beast of burden: useful for a time, but to be put down when it has outlived it's usefulness, or otherwise become ornery.
Trust no agent of the state who is not willing to enumerate a number of actions that, if they undertook, would justify their killing under the affirmative defense of protecting constitutional rights.
Radical? Obviously, I don't think so. Affirmative defenses are not legal "walks in the park". They shift the burden from the state having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the accused having to prove innocence under the specific affirmative defense shield, having admitted to comitting the act under consideration.
I can attest to that, having escaped Canada for the U.S.
I is also illegal to spend your own money to save your own life: everyone has to be on the same government health plan, "to be fair". Cuba and North Korea are the same.