http://yro.slashdot.org/…

touretzky writes

“Two ex-employees have sued Diskeeper Corporation in Los Angeles Superior Court after being fired, alleging that the company makes Scientology training a mandatory condition of employment (complaint, PDF). Diskeeper founder and CEO Craig Jensen is a high level, publicly avowed Scientologist who has given millions to his Church. Diskeeper’s surprising response to the lawsuit (PDF) appears to be that religious instruction in a place of employment is protected by the First Amendment.”

The blogger at RealityBasedCommunity.net believes that the legal mechanism that Diskeeper is using to advance this argument (”motion to strike”) is inappropriate and will be disallowed, but that the company will eventually be permitted to present its novel legal theory.

I’d side with Diskeeper but not because of their reasoning. Nothing in the federal constitution disallows this and any federal law which could be used would be unconstitutional. There are likely laws at the state level which disallow this but given no one was harmed I see no case. An employer should be allow to place whatever requirements for employment they desire and the potential employee or current employee can choose to or not to work or continue working for them.

I have to take all kinds of dumb training courses as part of my job. Including some managing ones which are very cult like. They have particular words they use with often times special definitions. If they started asking me to take some dumb cult study course… no problem. I’d gladly get paid to learn more about the insides of such an organisation.

http://www.downsizedc.org/…

“If the court grants our request … then if any law enforcement officer sees a Mongol wearing his patch, he will be authorized to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back.” - U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien

“The government can’t ban confederate flags, swastikas, or klan robes, and it sure as hell can’t ban the display of the Mongols’ logo.” - Marc J. Randazza

“What if the government had decided that, because of the Watergate scandal, nobody could use the word Republican again? - Zeichner Ellman

The Justice Department indicted 79 members of the Mongol Nation Motorcycle club for racketeering on October 21. The indictment included federal seizure of the “Mongols” trademarked name.

The case hasn’t even gone to trial yet , but U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has authorized the seizure of the defendants’ . . .

* Clothing, motorcycles, and other property bearing the Mongols trademark.
* Any similar property bearing the trademark that belongs to the defendants’ “agents, servants, employees, family members, and those persons in active concert or participation with them.”

In other words, many people who weren’t even indicted will have their property seized.

This ruling has serious problems . . .

* In April, Mongol Nation transferred its trademark to Shotgun Productions, LLC, in April, a company that isn’t even named in the indictment.
* Prohibiting possession of trademarked items sets a dangerous precedent. If the government for some reason seizes the Nike swoosh, could FBI agents strip Tiger Woods of his cap, shirt, and shoes?

Civil asset forfeiture was already wrong. The government has no right to seize property without a trial and conviction. But now Judge Cooper and the Justice Department have taken it to a whole new level . . .

* An organization could lose its trademark because of the alleged crimes of some of its members.
* Normal asset forfeiture only seizes property alleged to have been used for illegal purposes, but now the government can take property simply because it sports the wrong logo!
* People completely unrelated to any indictment are now having their property seized too!

Civil asset forfeiture already violates the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Now it endangers the First Amendment too. Government officials could trump-up charges against any organization they don’t like, seize its name, and put it out of business! It could happen to DownsizeDC.org!

This will chill freedom of expression.

Civil asset forfeiture must die. Use our Educate the Powerful System to tell Congress to repeal civil asset forfeiture.

Use your personal comments to tell Congress . . .

* About the Mongol case
* That’s its wrong for the government to seize property without due process and a conviction
* And even more wrong to seize property simply because it sports a legally-obtained, trademarked logo.

Demand that Congress abolish civil asset .forfeiture.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC army.

And a hat tip to The Legal Satyricon blog for providing links to government documents.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

This is really slick. I hadn’t considered such an action. Asset forfeiture has generally been able to continue do to its reach. It effects few and often those who are accused or convicted of a crime taking advantage of the fact that many do not wish to be associated with criminals and therefore will not stand up for their rights. However, should that reach grow as it has in this particular case perhaps there will be more public outrage. Then again perhaps not. Eminent domain has been more and more abused recently with relatively little increase in response.

Last night, October 21st, 2008, the Greater NYC Campaign for Liberty, some members of the Manhattan Libertarian Party and other liberty activists demonstrated in Grand Central Station. A bit of theater. A breadline containing a decent amount of individuals with others as satellites handing out literature, discussing the bailout with passer bys and filming the event. I was in the latter group. Not 10 minutes into the demonstration officers started speaking with Russ, requesting our reasons for being their, what exactly we were doing and I’d imagine if we had a permit.

I was at one point, not caught on video, threatened by the officer seen walking away from Russ at approximately 48 seconds into the video. A very loud and angry, similar to: “Back up! Get away from me!” I was merely walking up to inquire to what the problem was and why Russ was being engaged. After talking with Russ briefly I went around to the other side to get a different angle and hand out more literature. I soon noticed another officer appear (about 1 minute in) and start approaching the breadline. You can see at about 1:04 the first officer points me out to the new cop.

At 1:45 I’m approached by the first officer and told to stop filming the officers. The officer in particular was 5 or more feet from me and I was attempting to pick up the dialog in the rather loud station. I was not at any point noticed by the officer as I was completely behind him so there was no possibility of my existence being an interference. There were others standing closer who were not filming who were not harassed. I was left alone only because he become distracted by another officer or his radio. As Russ was being handcuffed I believe it’s the original officer who threatens to lock me up too if I don’t “take a walk.” So I took a walk. Following closely Russ and the two officers who were bringing him to the holding cell. I unfortunately stopped recording while in the police office talking with the officer at the main desk though I got some of it.

It one point an officer threatens to bring out the K-9 unit to sniff all our bags. A short time one happens to just walk right by all of us and our belongings and does not react.

At 6:30 the officer who was talking with Andrew asked if he could help me. I inform him I’m a member of the group there implying my reason for being next to him… though I think obviously the problem was my filming. When you see the camera go from facing the floor to the side is when the officer grabbed my arm motioning to either take my camera or start to place cuffs on me. He too was distracted by what appeared to be a superior officer calling on the radio. I hand the camera off to Andrew in case he came back to detain me. Listen to the radio. “You were told what to do. THAT’S ENOUGH. OK?! Do what you got to do!”

I kept the camera going while trying to act as it wasn’t. We were told the office was not a waiting room even though there had been people in there waiting and instructed to leave. Shortly after Russ is released.

Once we left the station after a couple minutes we noticed most of the officers involved in the incendent standing just inside the doorway staring and talking among themselves. I wasn’t quick enough, nor would it had gone over well, to record them watching us but I was able to get them walking away. A rather good ending to the video I think.

Take aways:

1. Don’t carry ‘official’ state identification when doing these things. That way when you tell them you don’t have ID to show them you’re telling the truth. In fact I now plan to not carry my state ID with me on a regular basis.
2. Don’t ever stop recording. These things don’t take long and it’s better to have too much footage and have to spend more time editing then missing some of the good parts.
3. I had my Free Talk Live press pass on me but forgot to wear it. However, it’s my ‘official’ one with all my information on it. I need to get another one printed with basic info which doesn’t give away my full identity.

We plan on doing this again in the next couple weeks. We’ll see how it goes.

Not that we very much care but if someone is familiar with the laws regarding the actions we took please post the relevant statutes in the comments. Thank you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.

Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July.

The department started sending letters of notification Saturday to the activists, inviting them to review their files before they are purged from the databases, Sheridan said.

“The names don’t belong in there,” he told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. “It’s as simple as that.”

The surveillance took place over 14 months in 2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists “fringe people.”

Both Hutchins and Sheridan said the activists’ names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries.

“I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government,” he said. Hutchins said he did not notify Ehrlich about the surveillance. Ehrlich spokesman Henry Fawell said the governor had no comment.

I’m pretty sure one of the precise reasons for the First Amendment is to disrupt the government. Besides… how is it that these people are in any way a threat? They are activists AGAINST violence. At what point will a software limitation cause all liberty activists to end up on watch lists? Or am I being too optimistic that we aren’t already?

It’s one thing to harass and arrest protesters causing trouble. Those ‘anarchists’ who damage property should be dealt with. It’s an entirely different thing to raid homes of individuals who have done nothing and to harm or arrest members of the press who obviously are not causing a problem. These people are thugs. Can anyone not understand why the so called authorities are disliked when they so blatantly infringe the very first amendment to the US Constitution, required by the anti-federalists in order to secure those rights from government infringement.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/…

Last Sunday we posted our Web Update titled “Next Step: Large Scale Hunger Fast.”

Last Tuesday, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz met for the third time with the staff of the National Park Service (NPS) to discuss the details of WTP’s permit for the hunger fast. The fast was originally scheduled to start on August 11, but was rescheduled to start on September 16, due to the current five week break by Congress.

Until Tuesday, the conditions of the permit included a 24 hours a day, 7 days per week hunger fast, with tents as shelters, provided there were “no sleeping bags, blankets and pillows for comfort.” Chairs would be allowed.

Last Tuesday, NPS informed Bob that no one would be allowed to sleep during the hunger fast! Anyone caught sleeping, they said, would be cited for violating the permit. The cost would be $75 for each citation plus court costs. Bob argued, without success, that our Hunger Fast was a First Amendment expression of our disgust with the Government’s failure to respond to our Petitions for Redress, and that a “no sleeping” rule would, in effect, amount to a denial of First Amendment Rights to Petition, Speech and Association.

Absent the initiation of yet another legal challenge, or hungering by People on 2-3 day shifts, the Park Service’s “no sleeping” Rule effectively cancels the large scale hunger fast.

The Park Service’s “no sleeping” rule did not effectively cancel the hunger fast. Those who where to be part of the We the People hunger fast who are deciding to go along with their rule cancels it. If you are asking the government for permission you deserve to be told no. I find it sad that some of these people will go out of their way to not pay income tax because the government won’t respond to them yet true civil disobedience scares them off. They need to realize that it’s not their government. It’s a group of thugs who need to be denied legitimacy and resisted. Canceling the fast is a sign of weakness in their resolve and just further legitimizes the government’s claimed authority over them.

Thus far, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has “responded” to the Petitions for Redress by having them “forwarded to the Clerk of the House.”

While such a move is unique among the Members of the House, and is not a bad first step in etching the concept of Government accountability into the minds of some of the Members and advancing ever so slightly the question of the constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment, it is highly unlikely that the Petitions for Redress will advance to House Committees for consideration, much less a vote to provide Redress. With the possible exception of Ron Paul, we know of no other politician willing to consider the notion of being held accountable to the People outside the periodic electoral process.

Whether or not the Petitions for Redress served on Ron Paul advance beyond the Office of the Speaker of the House, a constituent’s Right to Redress (like that of Religion, Speech, Press and Assembly) is an individual Right that does not depend on the will of any person or majority, not in the House, not in the Senate, not on any Court bench, and not among those voting in any election.

Forwarding the Petitions for Redress to the Clerk of the House has not relieved Rep. Ron Paul of his individual obligation to respond by answering the questions embedded in each of the seven Petitions for Redress. Even if his answer is, “I lack knowledge enough to admit or deny,” he has a legal (constitutional) obligation to respond.

We pray Rep. Paul will personally respond to the Petitions for Redress.

It’s unfortunate that Paul’s staff if not also Paul himself are afraid of responding claiming that doing so would open the door for more petitions and they don’t have the staff to deal with that. Even if they don’t answer them promptly they could at least queue them up and let the petitioner know it’s queued. They get to it when they have the ability to do so. The very idea that it would lead to the Congressmen being inundated with petitions for redress of grievances should be reason enough to do so.