FROM: privacy <privacy@thelawsalon.net>
SUBJECT: DOG COLLARS FOR PEOPLE…
DATE: February 25, 2021 08:58:10 AM PST
TO: undisclosed-recipients: ;
$2.5M invested in bracelets that beep if you come within 6 feet of someone –
<http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/2-5m-invested-in-bracelets-that-beep-if-you-come-within-6-feet-of-someone/>

By: alexmark
~~~~~~~~~~~
SOCIAL DISTANCING.   WHO THE FUCK CAME UP WITH THAT TERM IF NOT A
PROPAGANDA SPECIALIST, LIKE AN ATTORNEY FOR EXAMPLE OR GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE?
WELL GUESS WHAT FOLKS, THAT TERM IS THE ANTITHESIS OF WHAT THE 4TH
AMENDMENT AND THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNTER PARTS PROTECT & SECURE!!!
WHAT DOES “AUTONOMY” MEAN???  
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM A STANFORD LAW REVIEW ARTICLE, VOL. 25,  JUNE
1973,  “NONARREST AUTOMOBILE STOPS: UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURES OF THE
PERSON” BY CARL R. SCHENKER, JR.:
B. INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS
THE STATE INTERESTS IN INVESTIGATIVE AND INSPECTION STOPS MUST BE
BALANCED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AT STAKE IN AN AUTOMOBILE
STOP. ANALYSIS OF FOURTH AMENDMENT CASE LAW SUGGESTS THAT AUTOMOBILE
STOPS MAY IMPINGE ON AT LEAST FIVE OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S SEIZURE-RELATED
FOURTH AMENDMENT INTERESTS.
I. FREEDOM FROM ARBITRARY STATE INTERFERENCE.
A MOTORIST HAS A FOURTH AMENDMENT INTEREST IN BEING FREE FROM
ARBITRARY STATE INTERFERENCES,” AS DO NONMOTORISTS.55 ORDINARILY THIS
PROTECTION IS AFFORDED BY REQUIRING THAT AN “OBJECTIVE EVIDENTIARY
JUSTIFICATION””‘ SINGLE OUT AN INDIVIDUAL FOR SEIZURE.” HOWEVER, IN
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PROTECTION FROM ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE MAY BE
AFFORDED IF AN OFFICER WHO CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS ACTION IS LEGALLY
AUTHORIZED SEIZES MEMBERS OF A CLASS ON A REGULARIZED BASIS.”‘ A
MOTORIST’S INTEREST IN FREEDOM FROM ARBITRARY STATE INTERFERENCES WILL
BE VIOLATED WHEN HE IS SEIZED IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PROVIDE NEITHER
OF THESE GUARANTEES AGAINST ABUSE OF POLICEMEN’S SEIZURE POWERS.
2. “AUTONOMOUS SELF-POSITIONING.”
AN AUTOMOBILE STOP IMPINGES UPON AN INDIVIDUAL’S INTEREST IN MAKING
AUTONOMOUS DECISIONS TO REMAIN WHERE HE IS OR TO GO ELSEWHERE.” TERRY
HELD THAT WHENEVER AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THIS AUTONOMY HE
HAS BEEN SEIZED.” OBVIOUSLY, THIS INTEREST IS AS STRONG FOR A
STATIONARY INDIVIDUAL AS FOR THE OCCUPANT OF A MOVING CAR.
3. FREE PASSAGE.
A MOVING INDIVIDUAL HAS A FURTHER INTEREST IN LIBERTY OF MOVEMENT
WHICH A STATIONARY INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE-THE INTEREST IN BEING ABLE
TO CONTINUE HIS MOVEMENT. THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THIS INTEREST
IN “FREE PASSAGE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION” IN CARROLL V. UNITED STATES.”
CARROLL AROSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STOPPING OF AN AUTOMOBILE TO ALLOW
A SEARCH,”‘ BUT IT HAS ALSO BEEN CITED BY THE COURT IN DISCUSSING
STOPS TO ALLOW SEIZURES.”‘
CLEARLY ANY MOVING INDIVIDUAL HAS AN INTEREST IN FREE PASSAGE, BUT A
MOTORIST’S INTEREST IS ESPECIALLY STRONG. FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL
UTILIZES A CAR SPECIFICALLY TO ENHANCE HIS PERSONAL MOBILITY. IN
ADDITION, WHILE ANYONE CAN INTERRUPT THE MOVEMENT OF A SLOWLY MOVING
INDIVIDUAL-FOR EXAMPLE, A PEDESTRIAN – ORDINARILY ONLY A POLICEMAN CAN
STOP A MOTORIST.”‘ THUS, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE OCCUPANT OF A
MOVING CAR HAS GREATER EXPECTATIONS OF ACHIEVING FREE PASSAGE. THESE
EXPECTATIONS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE FOURTH AMENDMENT
JURISPRUDENCE HOLDS THAT REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF FREEDOM FROM
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE PLAY A ROLE IN THE DELINEATION OF FOURTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS.65
4. “AUTONOMOUS OTHER-ENCOUNTERING.”
AUTOMOBILE STOPS ALSO IMPINGE UPON AN INDIVIDUAL’S INTEREST IN
AVOIDING THOSE WHOM HE DOES NOT WISH TO ENCOUNTER.” ALTHOUGH CLOSELY
RELATED TO AND OFTEN REALIZED BY EXERCISE OF AUTONOMOUS
SELF-POSITIONING, THIS INTEREST HAS DISTINCT CONTENT. THE DISTINCTION
IS OBSCURED BY THE FACT THAT A POLICEMAN CAN ORDINARILY ENCOUNTER A
MOTORIST ONLY BY INTERFERING WITH HIS AUTONOMOUS SELF-POSITIONING AND
FREEDOM OF PASSAGE. THE DISTINCT CONTENT OF THIS INTEREST MAY BE SEEN,
HOWEVER, IN THE FACT THAT A POLICEMAN CAN ENCOUNTER A STATIONARY
INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH HIS AUTONOMOUS SELF-POSITIONING.”
THE INTEREST IN AUTONOMOUS OTHER-ENCOUNTERING EXISTS FOR BOTH
STATIONARY AND MOVING INDIVIDUALS, BUT IT IS ESPECIALLY STRONG FOR A
MOTORIST BECAUSE HE CAN ALMOST ENTIRELY AVOID UNDESIRED ENCOUNTERS
WITH INDIVIDUALS OTHER THAN POLICEMEN.
5. PRIVACY RIGHTS.
FINALLY, THE OCCUPANT OF A MOVING AUTOMOBILE HAS SPECIAL FOURTH
AMENDMENT PRIVACY INTERESTS WHICH STEM FROM THE OPERATION OF FOURTH
AMENDMENT SEARCH LAW. CASE LAW HOLDS THAT PLAIN SIGHT OBSERVATIONS BY
POLICEMEN ARE NOT SEARCHES,”‘ AND THAT A POLICEMAN WHO IS JUSTIFIABLY
IN A POSITION TO OBSERVE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE IN PLAIN SIGHT” MAY
ARREST ON THAT BASIS.” THUS A POLICEMAN WHO LAWFULLY” APPROACHES A
VEHICLE MAY ARREST ITS OCCUPANT IF HE OBSERVES ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OR
ILLEGAL OBJECTS IN PLAIN SIGHT.” ON THE OTHER HAND, SEARCH LAW GOVERNS
A POLICEMAN IN SEARCHING FOR OBJECTS NOT VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE CAR.

SO FUCK “SOCIAL DISTANCING”, I HAVE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONALLY
SECURED UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AND THAT’S NOT ONE OF EM!  
I CAN’T HELP BUT WONDER WHERE ALL THE PEOPLE ARE WHO I SENT THAT LAW
REVIEW ARTICLE TO OVER THE PAST 20+ YEARS SINCE RICHARD MCDONALD
PROVIDED IT TO ME.
CURRENT REALITY!

—
The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.
Thomas Pynchon