The RAnts of RA

When Privacy is Expendable, and Public Service is Private

By Ron Branson

The right of privacy is one of the most sacred and major of all property rights, and champions the right of the freedom of worship. It is inherent with nature. What you do with your own – is your business, and no one else’s, so long as your right does not affect the rights of others. The California Constitution starts out with these words, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Art. I, Sec. 1.

The above is just basic nature and common sense. Our Founding Fathers wrote in our Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Fourth Amendment.

There cannot be any such thing as a general search warrant, or the initiation of a fishing expedition. Our Constitution also specifies, “Congress shall make no law respecting … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” First Amendment.

Freedom to Shut Up

Of course, the freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak. But notwithstanding these prohibitions against government by the Constitution, it is amazing how government has twisted and subverted the truth so that those who have privacy rights have none, and those who do not, possess privacy rights.

I am laying a foundation in regards to the Alabama Decatur Daily Newspaper article, “Who owns government office e-mails?“. Therein the court agrees with public officials on the use of public time, public computers, in that they have the right to privacy when accused of mismanaging funds and embezzling public funds. J.A.I.L. says, not so.

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

 

Your 1040 Tax Return

I once asked a tax lawyer friend of mine if the material placed on a 1040 form could be used against the signer in a court of law. He said, “Of course.”

I then asked him if it would not thus follow that according to due process of law, everyone must be informed that anything they place on that form could be used against them, and therefore they must first be Marandized. Individuals must be informed that they could be arrested, jailed, and forced to appear in court to testify against themselves. The information provided to the IRS can and will be used against them in a court of law.

He said, “Yes, that is correct!” However, it is universally apparent that such due process of law is never placed into practice in America. Rather, everyone is left to their ignorance so that fraud may abound, and no one gets due process of law.

Papers Please!

Now, what would happen if you said to the police officer who pulled you over and walked up to your window and asked to see your driver’s license, and you said, “Well, that’s my personal matter, officer.” Aren’t we taught that not having a driver’s license is a crime? Is he going to inform you that under due process of law, you do not have to produce a driver’s license?

In reality, what will happen is the officer is going to ignore due process of law and rely upon your ignorance, asking you to provide him with the evidence he needs to charge you with a crime. And and if you fail to provide him with the incriminating evidence he needs, he is going to take you to jail.

Was this not the same tactic used in Nazi Germany when they forced their captives to “confess” to the crime they committed against the state? A confession of a crime against the state was grounds for imprisonment and torture, and refusal to confess to a crime against the state, was an arrestable offense, to which you would be imprisoned and tortured.

Nazism – American Style

This is precisely the Nazi practice we are employing here in America. Perhaps we could call it, “Nazism – American Style.” Instead of manifesting itself as a red and black swastika, it manifests itself as red, white and blue stripes, adorned with stars, and it is explained to us as “bringing one to justice.” After all, are we not a country of “liberty and justice for all?”

An acquaintance of mine was compelled by a judge to take the witness stand in a criminal case against himself. When he arose to be “sworn in,” they asked him, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” he responded, “No! I do not!” The judge threw him in jail for answering his question truthfully.

Oh, yes, I know there are going to be some of you who will say so me, “Oh, but the judge cannot do that because the Constitution says, ‘No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’ And so it does. But my answer to them is, “You mean you honestly believe that the law is going to govern the conduct of such judges? You’ve got to be kidding!” It’s all a joke conducted in the name of “justice.”

On the other hand, let’s now look at those who have no right to privacy, yet are being granted the right to privacy. When government officials are called to answer before Congress about their misconduct involving their public duties while on taxpayer time and money. They lean toward their attorney, and after a whisper, they straighten up and say, “On advice of my attorney, I cannot answer that question because it might incriminate me,” even if the matter is not criminal.

This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). Let me make it very clear, the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination does not, nor could it apply to public officials, holding a position of public trust. They carry out their duties on public time, and function on the public payroll with public equipment. Their position as a public trustee, i.e., a public servant, places them in the same roll of a servant to his master. They are obligated to give account as an accountant would his boss. This is why a employer may install cameras throughout his work place to monitor all his employees without being held liable for violations on privacy issue.

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

Now let’s look at The Decatur Daily, a story in which, government officials are arguing that newspapers have no right to investigate or question matters of public trust. Nor do they have the right to look into matters of government fraud, with the court concuring with the government official’s argument.

-Ron Branson