EXTREME SKULLS. FISHINATION. GUTS & GLORY! TRY IT GRILLED! BRILLIANT. HOW ARE YOU GONNA PUT OUT THE FIRE? SHOW TASTEBUDS WHO'S BOSS! BURRITOS SO BOLD THEY KICK BACK. OKAY, SO I HAVE ONLY BEEN BACK IN MISSOULA, MONTANA FOR ABOUT 2 HOURS AND I WENT OUT OF MY MOTEL ROOM, 118 AT THE SLEEPY INN, TO GET A DIET COKE, AND I NOTICED ONE COP CAR IN FRONT--DITCHED FAST WHEN HE/SHE NOTICED I CAUGHT THEM, AND ANOTHER COP CAR WITH LIGHTS ON, BUT SILENT, HIDING IN THE BACK OF THE MOTEL . . . NO NOISE, NO DISORDERLY CONDUCT, BARELY A FEW ROOMS RENTED FOR THE NIGHT, SO? GIVEN WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT . . . WHAT SHOULD I THINK? FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE POLICE, GANGING UP ON THIS BAD ASS CON LAW CHICK? WHAT THE FUCK, EVER! IN THE LOGIC OF THE COPS, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, IS THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE, SOMEONE, SAY LIKE COMEDIAN, POLITICAL SATIRIST, GEORGE CARLIN, WHO WAS TOTALLY IRREVERENT, HAD COMIC ROUTINES, DEALING WITH FOUR LETTER WORDS, LIKE IN SWEAR WORDS, AND WILLING TO TAKE THIS MASTER OF COMEDY, AND REPLACE HIM WITH SOMEONE, MORE, LET SAY, MAIN STREAM, PALPABLE TO THE PUBLIC, LIKE, SESAME STREET'S, MR. ROGERS! OR SAY, TAKING, DAILY SHOW, COMEDIAN AND POLITICAL PUNDIT, AUTHOR OF "RELIGIOUSLY" BILL MAHER, AND EXCHANGING THIS BRUTALLY SMART AND FUNNY, MAN, AND BRINGING PEE WEE HERMAN, AND SAYING, ALL OF US SHOULD NOT NOTICE AND BELIEVE, THAT PEE WEE, IS, THE EQUIVALENT AND OF THE SAME LEVEL AND IN THE SAME CLASS OF PERSONS! IT SEEMS OBSURD TO DO THIS TO A MAN, YET, SOMEHOW, DOING THIS TO A WOMEN, LIKE ME, AN ATTORNEY, PROFESSOR, BLOGGER, HOBBY LOBBYIST, POLITICAL PUNDIT, AND SOMEWHAT OF A COMEDIAN, IN MY OWN WAY, AND REPLACE HER WITHOUT NOTICE, OF WOMEN, NOT, IN HER CLASS OF WOMEN, ATTRIBUTING ALL OBTAINED, TO A LESSER ATTORNEY, WITHOUT, EVEN THE GENERAL ATTRIBUTES, AND WE ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BLINK AND EYE? FUCK THAT SHIT, THIN, IS NO REASON, SINCE, I WAS POISONED BY FEDERAL COPS, WHEN I WEIGHED 140 LBS., SO THAT IS NOT THE REASON . . . COPS ARE IN THE CLASS OF THOSE PSYCHOPATHS, WHO ARE DRAWN TO PROFESSIONS, LIKE WHAT IS TERMED HERO CAREERS OR PROFESSIONS; HOWEVER, PSYCHOPATHS, ARE VERY INTO PHYSICAL APPEARANCE ABOVE ALL ELSE, WHICH, MUST SOMEHOW, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE MINDS, JUSTIFY THIS BAIT & SWITCH, WORKHORSE VS. SHOW HORSE MENTALITY, WITH NO FOUNDATION IN LAW, IN HISTORY, IN SCRIPTURE, IN TRADITION, IN RATIONAL THINKING, OR IN A MERIT BASED WORLD? SO WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM, AND IS THIS CONSIDERED, NORMAL THINKING, OR SO FAR FROM WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAPPEN TO THEM? COMPARE ME TO A HARD CORE, DETECTIVE, WHO IS SITTING ON HIS ASS, HOURS EACH DAY, NO LONGER OUT ON THE BEAT, AND IS MORE OF A PAPER PUSHER, NOW . . . WOULD YOU THROW OUT, ALL OF THEIR EXPERIENCE OUT THE DOOR, AND PUT A GOOD LOOKING ROOKIE IN THEIR PLACE? FUCK NO, IT SEEMS ABSURD! IT DOES TO ME TOO--WOMEN ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE, ANY MORE THAN MEN, WE EARN OUR STRIPES! JUST A THOUGHT, NOW ONTO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG, INSPIRED BY THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE, I WATCHED TONIGHT, AFTER WATCHING THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE THIS AFTERNOON . . . AS FAR AS WHAT I WATCHED, THE CONTROVERSY, OF A FEDERAL JUDGE, TELLING APPLE TO TURN THE PHONE, OF A FRIEND OF ONE OF THE SAN BERNADINO BOMBERS, ALLOWING THE FBI, TO USE THEIR EQUIPMENT TO BUST THE ENCRYPTED CODE AND LOOK AT THE OWNER'S PHONE CALLS AND MESSAGES . . . APPLE CEO COOK IS CONTESTING THAT DECISION, MY TAKING THE STAND THAT IF THE FBI WERE TO BREAK THE ENCRYPTED CODES, PROTECTING THEIR PRODUCT BUYERS, FROM, FIRST, 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO BE PROTECTED FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AND 9TH AMENDMENT, RIGHTS TO PRIVACY! I AGREE WITH APPLE AND HAVE ENCOURAGED THEM TO STAND THEIR GROUND, AGAINST THE FBI, AND PROTECT THEIR CLIENTS AND PATRONS, WHO PURCHASED THEIR APPLE PHONES, SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE PROTECTIONS AND THAT PRIVACY. I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH MY CONSTITUTIONAL REASONING, AND YOU CAN LEARN, AND DECIDE, IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE . . . REMEMBERING, THIS IS NOT STOPPING A TERRORIST ATTACK, THIS IS AFTER THE FACT, IN A LEARNING ACTIVITY AND ONE, THAT MIGHT, FURTHER OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MIND OF THE TERRORISTS, POSSIBLY PREVENTING FUTURE TERRORIST ATTACKS. LET'S SEE WHAT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SAYS AND APPLY THE LAW TO THE FACTS, AS ANY GOOD ATTORNEY WOULD DO. AND I AM A GOOD ATTORNEY!

Apple Inc. vs. FBI, U.S.A.

4TH AMENDMENT

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 ...

FACTS

• Apple Inc. created phones for their customers, a phone, at great expense, not only to produce the technology, but to purchase the phones, that protects their buyers of the searching eyes of law enforcement's ever invasive meta data gathering, in a blanket warrant, that allows cops to have access to the accounts of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices and technology, of American high tech companies, who object and are under pressure and scrutiny, from the buying public, to take precautions against these, unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments.
• In 2012, the day, I was sworn in, as a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, able to argue in the high court, Justice Antonin Scalia, an constitutional strict constructionist, read the ruling of the Supreme Court, in a case, called, U.S.A. v. Jones, another case, involving, the FBI, the 4th amendment, and other rights, including the right to privacy, and the liberty to be free of government, big brother, invasion of personal, and protected private property, as in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.  In the Jones case, I believe, relying on my Brock security case, filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, almost a year earlier, where I argued that computer files today, are the equivalent of the founding father's days, papers, and should be protected from, say security investigators, coming in a financial planners office, and without a warrant, not even an administrative subpoena, or having gone before a judge, examining the probable cause, to see if it is sufficient to justify, crossing the lines of privacy and protections, due to some reason, traditionally, connected with crimes before they happen, or in the furtherance of a criminal investigation and prosecution, to bring someone to justice, thus protecting society, from harm or the actions of this suspect, thus gathering evidence that is needed for the prosecution and protection.  I Jones, the FBI wanted to put a GPS tracking device on an alleged, drug king-pin's vehicle.  The magistrate or judge, found that, there was sufficient probable cause, to justify, placing, a GPS tracking system, on the man's vehicle, in Washington D.C., within the 10 day, period, the judge found to be a reasonable time frame to accomplish that act.  However, the FBI, violated the warrant, put the GPS on, not the suspect's vehicle, as I recall, on the eleventh day, in Baltimore.  The FBI used the information, they gathered, to prosecute the king-pin, and the defense team, moved to suppress the evidence that was damaging to their client, by arguing that the warrant and GPS placing were, stale, going outside the perimeters of the warrant, thus, the warrant was not good . . . The United States Supreme Court, agreed with the defense, and said that a vehicle was, an affect, under the list of 4th amendment items that are to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.  This was a case that, me and my clients, were watching carefully, because, it was directly related to our case, through analogous comparison.  I got a copy of the brief from the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, and realized, that is was my argument in the Brock case, and was the 4th amendment issue that I was seeking a ruling and certiorari, or a hearing and ruling from the Court, and therefore, I decided, that I didn't need to go further, because, it was basically my case.  It is interesting, that, in one newspaper article, after an initial hearing or in the briefs, the defense counsel brought the public policy argument, telling the justices, that, if the FBI was allowed to just put a GPS tracking device on any one's vehicle, they too, could be the target of the invasive, secretive actions of the FBI . . . Justice Scalia went apeshit, to think that, the FBI could trace him, without him knowing the device was there.
• without, doing really much research and only being familiar with the newspaper articles on the attacks and a sketchy, brief reading and skim of the facts, without a TV, I will write the facts, in this issue between Apple and the FBI.  From, the little I know, just tangentially, listening or hearing about it, through this or that source, generally, on the run, or doing other things, what I think, is going on, is that Apple, is refusing to comply with an FBI request, to break the encrypted codes, of an Apple phone, that was in the possession of a friend? of one of the bombers, thinking that there may be some valuable information, as to who these people were and why they did what they did.  Apple, is arguing, from what I would do had I been their attorneys, protecting the civil and constitutional rights of ALL Apple customers, in telling the FBI, to go take a flying fuck, through a rolling doughnut, in no uncertain terms, and I am sure, they feel far stronger than that, in light of the NSA, the cyber cops, who do the tech work and spying for them, violating rights, all over the place without going through the process, that pesky, little, due process or notice + hearing, that is required to get a warrant, putting the FBI under the obligation to justify, violating or proving that their actions or requests, getting a warrant, justify, in the judge's mind, that they had given enough probable cause to take the actions of searching and seizing whatever it is they want . . . in this case, data from the phone.
• even though, the FBI is arguing that, they are just taking this ONE phone, and using their OWN technology to break the encrypted code, thus protecting all other Apple customers, privacy, Apple, would argue, that, while the invasive and intrusive government action, is allegedly, only on that one phone, that one phone, and breaking the code, on that one phone, would allow the FBI access to ALL OTHER customer's phones, because the technology, is not unique to just that ONE phone, with each phone, having a distinctly individual encrypted code, general technology, and encryption, is one application and code, that unlocks, ALL APPLE PHONES, giving the FBI, in all reality, a MASTER KEY, to unlock all, phone secrets, on EVERY Apple phone, thus violating the very purpose of the encrypted code . . . it is not, even a lenient or liberal application, such as giving an inch, it is giving the whole mile, by the judge giving, access to just this ONE phone!

ANALYSIS . . . PRIVACY vs. NATIONAL SECURITY

• from my perspective, and in my opinion, national security, is the wa card, law enforcement uses, to get access to everything, from your cell phones, computers, technologies and devices, and that is exactly, how, we got into this mess with the NSA, doing this mega or meta data gathering, and for all intents and purposes, the FISCA courts, are nothing more than, a select panel of judges, that, merely, rubber stamp, the FBI warrants, every 90 days, as a matter of rote actions, to pretend to satisfy the letter of the law, however, violating the spirit of the law.  The two landmark and early U.S. Supreme Court cases, the law, when dealing with new statutes and laws, is that: (1) any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is VOID; and (2) any law that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, is CONSTITUTIONAL!  
• as a constitutional law attorney, bad ass at that, and hard core, protector, preserver and defender of the rights and protections, this brilliant document, was set in motion and drafted, signed and implemented to do, the FBI, as they have in this Apple case, rather than gathering, mega or meta data, as if, using a huge ass fishing net or web net, to gather, without discrimination, all American's private and personal data, just in case, the FBI might, need it at some future point, the agency, should, seek a warrant, based on oath and affirmation, presented, in camera, to a judge, providing the proper due process and attention, seeing that this is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and not to be easily dismissed; therefore, the PRISM programs, in my mind, violate constitutional rights and it therefore, unconstitutional, the way, it has been applied, totally invasive, and aggressive, with all access, without, the FBI having to justify anything! violating both the letter and the spirit and repugnant to the CONSTITUTION!
• access to the encrypted code, due to the business secrets, intellectual property, technical process, including the costs, the selling and advertised protection, against, exactly what, would be violated, not only the trust of the company, but the violation of American principles and concepts.  To me, it appears to just be, a curiosity, a power play, an act of revenge, that Apple is protecting their customers, something, that few have been able to do, especially against the government, and basically rendering the technology, expense and protections, NULL and VOID!  The attack, has already happened, so the FBI action, is latent or late, a band aid, where surgery should have happened, or prevention, rather than, after the fact, information gathering.  THE attack is over, the crime committed, the suspects or bombers are dead, the FBI actions, are not in furtherance of the prosecution, but, like, an agency, who is used to getting their way, furthering the exact fears, spying on America, this encryption was created for or to prevent. The argument of national security, is over used . . . if the court were to deny the FBI's motion, really, nothing would change; however, if the court as it did, orders or stands by its order, or the Court of Appeals panel, does force, as it has, but, the battle is not over yet, Apple to turn over that phone, the gateway, to violating all rights of Apple users, there is the floodgate argument, the public policy argument, the slippery slope, that we have already gone down, with Apple, saying, NO, then protecting individual rights and protection, creating programs after the fact to block and force the FBI to follow, laws, 240 years old!

CONCLUSION

• from what I understand, these terrorists, were not secretive about their intentions . . . they were in ISIS magazines, and clearly had been radicalized; therefore, without, the phone, the FBI, before the fact, should have had these names on their radar, the old fashioned way, by doing the leg work, the investigative work, before hand, that might have prevented this attack, doing their job, before hand, protecting national security, using that argument against them, rather than always for them, this time, pushing back, the overstepping we all know, has GONE TOO FAR.
• we can't turn back time and go back and stop this attack, so, the risk of violating, ALL Apple customers, for something the FBI can't justify by oath and affirmation with probably cause, that they can list with specificity, what is or is possibly on that phone, and might, create some reason, more probable than not, that this particular friend, goes beyond, just interest, to having reason, to justify the reasonable search and seizure.  The FBI has to stop being lazy, using after the fact, technology, replacing, leg work and research, making it look, like they did their job . . . after the fact, the attacks are done, the FBI doesn't know if there is anything of us, and they, must give the judge, the reasons of what they believe or are more probably going to find on that phone, to warrant, breaking the rules, forcing Apple to comply with the FBI's request . . . I don't think, that standard of review and affirmation, or any specificity has been met; therefore, I would rule NO, seeing the risk of the exposure of ALL accounts and customers protections at risk, being more weighty on the side of blind justice, than on only the phishing expedition, and real, lazy ass way to do business, investigation, thus, not putting national security at risk at all, because, there is no guarantee that they will find anything, and they could have obtained the ISIS information without violation of rights, before, rather than after the fact.
• this is just a cursory look at the issue, and I am sure, I could come up with more reasons, with any thought, this is just off the cuff, and off the top of my head.  But, I was either, lacking being impressed by any of the Republican candidates for president, and even not being impressed with Ted Cruze, allegedly a Harvard law grad, with tons of experience before the high court, the others all sided with the sob, FBI story to always, get the people or sheeple, to turn over their rights and privacy, all in the name of alleged or bogus, national protection.  Like in the Boston bomber case, these boys were on the FBI radars screen, for 5 fucking years, and as I recall, Russia even contacted the U.S. and warned the feds to watch them, as did their mother . . . in light of this, the FBI did nothing to stop the attacks, and after the fact is too late! as it is in this case.

Quick Look . . . Apple and Privacy Win!  FBI Needs To Prove They Are Worth Their Pay . . . Haven't Seen It Yet!  Things Might Look Different, Had a Terrorist in Recent Memory Been Stopped, but That Has Not Been the Case!