27
Jul
2004
So Barb Caffrey wants to write for the River Cities' Reader. (See "Keep This Man from Writing Again," River Cities' Reader Issue 486, July 21-27, 2004.) I guess it's the recruiter in me that imagines what that job interview would be like ...
"Well, Todd and Kathleen, you should hire me because Jeff Ignatius is incompetent, and the article on rental-property inspections was deplorable and horrible."
I picture Todd and Kathleen looking at each other, half-amused, then one of them saying, "Barb, we hired Jeff. We continue to employ him ... and we published that article. When you call him incompetent and his article deplorable and horrible, you're sort of insulting us, too."
"Uh... did I tell you I have a master's in music and a novel under consideration?"
But seriously, I would think that someone who purports to be a professional writer would put her best journalistic foot forward, especially when angling for a writing job. Avoiding colloquialisms like "rock stuff" and "blowing off" would be a good start. Some of those sentences were ... well, a little long (66 words in one instance) and redundant ("whole, entire article").
I could have also done without the insults. There was no reason that I could think of that made it necessary to insult Mr. Ignatius in such vitriolic fashion. Bear in mind, he has feelings, too. Ms. Caffrey could have made her point without publicly branding him as incompetent.
I do find it amusing that Ms. Caffrey points one criticism at a "self-serving landlord." She wrote what was ostensibly a blistering, insulting critique of Mr. Ignatius and his article and managed to turn it into a job application. If that's not self-serving, I don't know what is.
Jim Moens
Rock island
Rental Inspections Unconstitutional
The article "Fixing Problem Properties" (written by Jeff Ignatius) put a burr under the saddle of Barb Caffrey. (See River Cities Reader Issue 485, July 14-20, 2004.) Both failed to mention the unconstitutionality of the inspections.
The United States Supreme Court handed down two very important decisions pertaining to inspections of private property:
(1) "Ordinance authorizing warrantless entry of residential property to inspect for fire code violations violates Fourth and 14th Amendments."
(2) "Ordinance authorizing warrantless entry of commercial property to inspect for housing-code violations violates Fourth and 14th Amendments."
When OSHA attempted to inspect a man's factory, he refused them entry because they did not have a complaint. OSHA obtained a court order requiring the man to allow the inspection. The man obtained a restraining order to prevent the enforcement of the order.
The U.S. Supreme Court, citing those two decisions, said: "Without a warrant, an inspector stands in no better position than the public; he can go where the public can go and see what the public can see."
The court, also, referred to the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 as a forerunner to our own Bill of Rights.
The framers feared "general warrants." One of the most famous English cases was one of a series of civil actions against state officers who had pursuant to general warrants raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the king himself. Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broke into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets, and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive "of all the comforts of society" and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers and not those only alleged to be criminal in nature "contrary to the genius of the law of England." Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause, and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that this is a "great judgment," one of the landmarks of English liberty ... one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution and a guide to an understanding of what the framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.
Lord Camden said: "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set foot upon my ground without a license but he is liable to an action though the damage be nothing." Protection of property interests as the basis of the Fourth Amendment found easy acceptance in the Supreme Court and that acceptance controlled decisions in numerous cases.
Perhaps the most forceful expression of our right to privacy, in our private property, was made by William Pitt in Parliament in 1763: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all of his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
Few people understand our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and the difference between the two. The Bill of Rights protects our inherent and inalienable rights. We inherited them directly from God at the time of creation, and they are inherent because there is nothing of equal value that may be given in return. The Constitution is an enumeration of the concessions, made by the states, in order to form the general government.
Our Constitution created a nation of individuals. Each of us is a sovereign. When property is taken, it must be taken for a public purpose and the public must pay for it. If the government placards your home to prevent you from renting or using it, it must pay for the loss of the rent or use. (This is a taking by placarding.) The government (the people) only have jurisdiction over public domain (that which is owned jointly by the people).
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained: "Nuisance implies the transmission of the effect beyond the boundaries of the land on which the objectionable condition exists."
An Illinois appellate court said: "A landowner does not have a right to a pleasing view of his neighbor's land."
It is well established that the condition must cause an injury to a public or a private right, not just a violation of the law.
Recently, a Scott County judge dismissed an action because the plaintiffs were not identified, stating that he wouldn't be able to tell if they suffered an injury if he didn't know who they were.
U.S. Senator Charles Grassley is a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. All members of Congress have access to the Congressional research service. He should be able to provide information as to what constitutes probable cause for the issuance of a warrant for an inspection of private property and what limits must be contained in the warrant.
Art Small is challenging Senator Grassley's bid for re-election. These important questions should be submitted to both, before the election.
The people have a right to know.
Richard M. Boalbey
Rock Island
No "Lesser of Two Evils" with Bush and Kerry
No surprise here! Fans of the Bush hierarchy are pushing for legislation that would allow for a delay of the 2004 presidential election.
During a speech at a luncheon for Ferguson for Congress a little over two years ago, Bush stated, "This was not a time for politics in our country. This was a time to be as good an American as you could possibly be. It's a time of great testing." And he also stated, "So I'm asking Congress to make a tough decision: to give up a little turf, and to do what's right on behalf of the American people, so that I can continue to say the government is doing good."
Now, he and his dictatorship enablers are pushing for an agenda that will allow for the giving up of more "turf" by congress and us.
Realistically, it's not going to matter in the end who may win the next election, if the choice is between Bush and Kerry. Bush is fulfilling his role as a wannabe world dictator and would like to continue, and Kerry has been a so-called rep of ours in congress since 1982. Both have shown their true colors as traitors regarding our rights as American citizens, and those of other nations. Both have been playing a game of political savvy; the only difference now will be which one gets to be the next king of the American political mountain.
If the present administration has its way, Bush will get to stay on top, and it won't matter what has to occur to make it happen. Those in control have created and/or allowed catastrophic incidents (9/11, Oklahoma City, Waco, etc.) to happen in our past, and they have the power (and the will) to allow for such to happen again in our near future. After all, what's a little collateral damage?
DeForest B. Soaries, chairperson of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, has recently (June 25, 2004) written a letter to our leaders in the House and Senate regarding the possibility of such an incident happening once again, and made sure that the "Homeland Security Department" received a copy. Excerpt: "There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or re-schedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack."
The irony of the administration playing on the fact that the mayoral election in New York was postponed due to the attack upon the WTC in September of 2001 should not escape those who still have a functioning brain. Their next thoughts should be "how long a postponement it'll be" and, more importantly, "where the next 'terrorist' attack upon our land will happen, and how many will have to suffer because of it."
The administration's words that there is no intention of doing such (stalling the 2004 election) should actually be read as a threat of doing just that!
Recently I read a book by author Anthony Fabrizio titled Outgunned: America's Nightmare. While the short book is obviously a fictional piece, the theme is anything but. And, as I stated to Mr. Fabrizio and a few others, it's a piece that isn't very far off the probable mark. It's a play upon Mrs. Clinton, Haley Rondell Criton, being president in 2008, and her course of action in disarming us! After all, one can't do as they desire if others have the means to keep it from happening. (And, has Bush not more than proven that he'll do whatever it takes to achieve his goals? Example: Iraq.)
This election there will be no so-called "lesser of two evils" if the choice remains between Bush and Kerry. Both have an agenda that clearly undermines our rights as citizens in a secure and free nation as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
As an independent American woman I'll be voting (if allowed to) for Michael Badnarik, an Indiana Libertarian. (He unconditionally supports our right to keep and bear arms, and vows to bring our troops back home ASAP from Iraq.) If all others who are disgusted with the political game-playing and lies do the same we'll have a chance to beat the political monster that has evolved with the help of the two major political parties. A win for us can happen, as clearly over one-third of American voters are independents.
What say you? What will be your course of action? Whatever it is, allow for no further lessening of your rights due to the will of others.
Tell your legislators you will not tolerate a postponement of our 2004 presidential election, and leave no doubt as to the outcome due to a probable miscounting of the ballots as in the last election. Make the result a landslide.
Let both Bush and Kerry know that they are not your only options. Tell them both to go to hell by themselves, that you desire better for you, yours, and us! There is a chance for change, and you are it!
Flo Maureen Sielaff
Bettendorf, Iowa
I picture Todd and Kathleen looking at each other, half-amused, then one of them saying, "Barb, we hired Jeff. We continue to employ him ... and we published that article. When you call him incompetent and his article deplorable and horrible, you're sort of insulting us, too."
"Uh... did I tell you I have a master's in music and a novel under consideration?"
But seriously, I would think that someone who purports to be a professional writer would put her best journalistic foot forward, especially when angling for a writing job. Avoiding colloquialisms like "rock stuff" and "blowing off" would be a good start. Some of those sentences were ... well, a little long (66 words in one instance) and redundant ("whole, entire article").
I could have also done without the insults. There was no reason that I could think of that made it necessary to insult Mr. Ignatius in such vitriolic fashion. Bear in mind, he has feelings, too. Ms. Caffrey could have made her point without publicly branding him as incompetent.
I do find it amusing that Ms. Caffrey points one criticism at a "self-serving landlord." She wrote what was ostensibly a blistering, insulting critique of Mr. Ignatius and his article and managed to turn it into a job application. If that's not self-serving, I don't know what is.
Jim Moens
Rock island
Rental Inspections Unconstitutional
The article "Fixing Problem Properties" (written by Jeff Ignatius) put a burr under the saddle of Barb Caffrey. (See River Cities Reader Issue 485, July 14-20, 2004.) Both failed to mention the unconstitutionality of the inspections.
The United States Supreme Court handed down two very important decisions pertaining to inspections of private property:
(1) "Ordinance authorizing warrantless entry of residential property to inspect for fire code violations violates Fourth and 14th Amendments."
(2) "Ordinance authorizing warrantless entry of commercial property to inspect for housing-code violations violates Fourth and 14th Amendments."
When OSHA attempted to inspect a man's factory, he refused them entry because they did not have a complaint. OSHA obtained a court order requiring the man to allow the inspection. The man obtained a restraining order to prevent the enforcement of the order.
The U.S. Supreme Court, citing those two decisions, said: "Without a warrant, an inspector stands in no better position than the public; he can go where the public can go and see what the public can see."
The court, also, referred to the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 as a forerunner to our own Bill of Rights.
The framers feared "general warrants." One of the most famous English cases was one of a series of civil actions against state officers who had pursuant to general warrants raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the king himself. Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broke into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets, and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive "of all the comforts of society" and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers and not those only alleged to be criminal in nature "contrary to the genius of the law of England." Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause, and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that this is a "great judgment," one of the landmarks of English liberty ... one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution and a guide to an understanding of what the framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.
Lord Camden said: "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set foot upon my ground without a license but he is liable to an action though the damage be nothing." Protection of property interests as the basis of the Fourth Amendment found easy acceptance in the Supreme Court and that acceptance controlled decisions in numerous cases.
Perhaps the most forceful expression of our right to privacy, in our private property, was made by William Pitt in Parliament in 1763: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all of his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
Few people understand our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and the difference between the two. The Bill of Rights protects our inherent and inalienable rights. We inherited them directly from God at the time of creation, and they are inherent because there is nothing of equal value that may be given in return. The Constitution is an enumeration of the concessions, made by the states, in order to form the general government.
Our Constitution created a nation of individuals. Each of us is a sovereign. When property is taken, it must be taken for a public purpose and the public must pay for it. If the government placards your home to prevent you from renting or using it, it must pay for the loss of the rent or use. (This is a taking by placarding.) The government (the people) only have jurisdiction over public domain (that which is owned jointly by the people).
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania explained: "Nuisance implies the transmission of the effect beyond the boundaries of the land on which the objectionable condition exists."
An Illinois appellate court said: "A landowner does not have a right to a pleasing view of his neighbor's land."
It is well established that the condition must cause an injury to a public or a private right, not just a violation of the law.
Recently, a Scott County judge dismissed an action because the plaintiffs were not identified, stating that he wouldn't be able to tell if they suffered an injury if he didn't know who they were.
U.S. Senator Charles Grassley is a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. All members of Congress have access to the Congressional research service. He should be able to provide information as to what constitutes probable cause for the issuance of a warrant for an inspection of private property and what limits must be contained in the warrant.
Art Small is challenging Senator Grassley's bid for re-election. These important questions should be submitted to both, before the election.
The people have a right to know.
Richard M. Boalbey
Rock Island
No "Lesser of Two Evils" with Bush and Kerry
No surprise here! Fans of the Bush hierarchy are pushing for legislation that would allow for a delay of the 2004 presidential election.
During a speech at a luncheon for Ferguson for Congress a little over two years ago, Bush stated, "This was not a time for politics in our country. This was a time to be as good an American as you could possibly be. It's a time of great testing." And he also stated, "So I'm asking Congress to make a tough decision: to give up a little turf, and to do what's right on behalf of the American people, so that I can continue to say the government is doing good."
Now, he and his dictatorship enablers are pushing for an agenda that will allow for the giving up of more "turf" by congress and us.
Realistically, it's not going to matter in the end who may win the next election, if the choice is between Bush and Kerry. Bush is fulfilling his role as a wannabe world dictator and would like to continue, and Kerry has been a so-called rep of ours in congress since 1982. Both have shown their true colors as traitors regarding our rights as American citizens, and those of other nations. Both have been playing a game of political savvy; the only difference now will be which one gets to be the next king of the American political mountain.
If the present administration has its way, Bush will get to stay on top, and it won't matter what has to occur to make it happen. Those in control have created and/or allowed catastrophic incidents (9/11, Oklahoma City, Waco, etc.) to happen in our past, and they have the power (and the will) to allow for such to happen again in our near future. After all, what's a little collateral damage?
DeForest B. Soaries, chairperson of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, has recently (June 25, 2004) written a letter to our leaders in the House and Senate regarding the possibility of such an incident happening once again, and made sure that the "Homeland Security Department" received a copy. Excerpt: "There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or re-schedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack."
The irony of the administration playing on the fact that the mayoral election in New York was postponed due to the attack upon the WTC in September of 2001 should not escape those who still have a functioning brain. Their next thoughts should be "how long a postponement it'll be" and, more importantly, "where the next 'terrorist' attack upon our land will happen, and how many will have to suffer because of it."
The administration's words that there is no intention of doing such (stalling the 2004 election) should actually be read as a threat of doing just that!
Recently I read a book by author Anthony Fabrizio titled Outgunned: America's Nightmare. While the short book is obviously a fictional piece, the theme is anything but. And, as I stated to Mr. Fabrizio and a few others, it's a piece that isn't very far off the probable mark. It's a play upon Mrs. Clinton, Haley Rondell Criton, being president in 2008, and her course of action in disarming us! After all, one can't do as they desire if others have the means to keep it from happening. (And, has Bush not more than proven that he'll do whatever it takes to achieve his goals? Example: Iraq.)
This election there will be no so-called "lesser of two evils" if the choice remains between Bush and Kerry. Both have an agenda that clearly undermines our rights as citizens in a secure and free nation as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
As an independent American woman I'll be voting (if allowed to) for Michael Badnarik, an Indiana Libertarian. (He unconditionally supports our right to keep and bear arms, and vows to bring our troops back home ASAP from Iraq.) If all others who are disgusted with the political game-playing and lies do the same we'll have a chance to beat the political monster that has evolved with the help of the two major political parties. A win for us can happen, as clearly over one-third of American voters are independents.
What say you? What will be your course of action? Whatever it is, allow for no further lessening of your rights due to the will of others.
Tell your legislators you will not tolerate a postponement of our 2004 presidential election, and leave no doubt as to the outcome due to a probable miscounting of the ballots as in the last election. Make the result a landslide.
Let both Bush and Kerry know that they are not your only options. Tell them both to go to hell by themselves, that you desire better for you, yours, and us! There is a chance for change, and you are it!
Flo Maureen Sielaff
Bettendorf, Iowa
