Okay, fine, let's dispense with the idiotic mentality that we don't know that this is happening and get down to brass tacks, shall we? The commercial came on from the government sponsored 'protecting kids' campaign against 'online dangers.' Let me first repeat for you EXACTLY, ver batim, what the commercial states:

"You try to protect them. You want to keep them safe. You monitor what they watch. You set filters to control their content. But, are they really safe? ....... But, the truth is, you can't control your kids' exposure to sex, but you can control how they behave."

For those who MISSED it - let me point out the MAJOR areas of concern:

1. You - the parent, the role model, the guardian, the protector, the guidance counselor, the loved one, the creator, the provider - YOU - have NO control at all - YOU CAN NOT control YOUR CHILDS exposure to SEX because YOU can't stop the media - the ones broadcasting this commercial - from putting sex in front of them. YOU can't stop the abuse of the internet where idiots whose evolutionary basis for sex starts and stops at monkeys will post sex. YOU can't stop the kids at school from talking about it. YOU can't stop your own child's self-driven interest in it (aka their evolutionary development as you are NOT God).

2. But, you can control their behavior.

WHAT? Did I, um, miss something? Let me try this one on you: "Hey little Joey, I want you to say yes and no, sir and ma'am, thank you and please, never talk out of turn, always do your homework, do your chores, listen to every word I say, do as I say not as I do and behave...... But, what happens if they don't? Didn't the TV tell you that you could "control" their behavior? Oh, that's right - because the media is GOING to BLAST sex ALL OVER EVERY show they watch, every commercial they hear and do it so repeatedly that its effectiveness rivals hypnotherapy and subliminal messaging - you CAN'T control them. So, um, why... did the TV... tell me I could?

Because, in the face of Congressional laws coming out such as the "forced" community service, Congress wants to empower you to do as they say. You see - THEY CONTROL YOU. YOU - do not even control yourself. They DON'T need your vote. They DON'T need your approval. What they want - is your OBEDIENCE. But, you argue and say - "no, I'm NOT an idiot, I'm NOT your slave, this is a FREE country and I EXPECT the DEMOCRATIC process to allow me to put in my vote."

Now there's conflict. A resolution is needed. Congress says, "Well, we 'do' represent the desires of the people and we 'should' do what they want, but - naaaahhhhh - why do that? Let's scare them, weaken them, take away their power, screw with their heads - and when they're helpless - let's hit 'em below the belt!" You see, for those of you without children, let me 'splain.... no, wait, let me sum up (what movie? c'mon... you know which one 80's generation.. hahahaha):

We love our kids. We live in fear because we KNOW there are bad people out there, the police and court systems are inneffective and we don't want them hurt. Why? WE WENT THROUGH IT. The parents who are ignorant of what their kids are doing - didn't go through the hardships. WE KNOW. We do NOT want them to grow up. We want something DIFFERENT for them. We want a life of happiness and joy and one that doesn't involve strife and heartache. But, that's not always possible. We know that. And, we know that the media is just getting worse - and worse - and worse. I took my son to see a PG movie - and boy oh boy - what they get away with in PG movies is FAR more than I EVER wanted him to see. Learned my lesson.... And, what does the government do? They ENCOURAGE sex in media. The FCC throws a temper tantrum because Janet Jackson had a 'portion' of her COVERED boob pop out during the super bowl half-time because 'families' were watching - but.... it's okay to them that many of today's cartoons include kissing, sexual scenes, sexual jokes and the music videos that ALL the kids are watching include 'pimpin' the ho's' and the degraded value of idols such as Spears and Lohan.

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Let us examine the role of a Grand Jury:

The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon, an 1166 act of Henry II of England. In fact, Henry's chief contribution to the development of the English monarchy was to increase the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of the feudal courts. Itinerant justices on regular circuits were sent out once each year to enforce the "King's Peace." To make this system of royal criminal justice more effective, Henry employed the method of inquest used by William the Conqueror in the Domesday Book. In each shire a body of important men were sworn (jure) to report to the sheriff all crimes committed since the last session of the circuit court. Thus originated the modern grand jury that presents information for an indictment. The grand jury was later recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility. (are we recalling the first post, in which I clearly explained that part of the Constitution’s purpose was to no longer follow European traditions?)

Early in U.S. history, the grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended. But, is the practice of a Grand Jury today, still at as much risk for corruption as they were back then? Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. New Zealand abolished them in 1961 and Canada in the 1970’s.

In fact, only HALF of the States in our Union use Grand Juries. Yes – HALF. What does that mean? That means, that the U.S. is NOT using the fair and equal standard across the Country, meant to Form a MORE PERFECT UNION, as the justice system has slowly come to realize the corrupt and unconstitutional nature of grand juries. – Slowly – As it is, the “other” half of the U.S. relies upon preliminary hearings in which Judges are allowed to be presented with ALL of the evidence, from BOTH sides – to ensure fairness and accuracy of the issues. Where Grand Juries do exist, such as it is in Oregon – the one sided argument – from Law enforcement AND the DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S office (the ever-scrupulous bastions of fairness and hope.. right?), before dragging you into Court – and sometimes – JAILING you – without your even knowing that ANYTHING was going on!!

A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. (a special thanks to Wikipedia, for this information – and references YOU can follow up on to find more arguments defining the unconstituionality of the Grand Jury process).

I won’t even waste the time in this argument to discuss the Double Jeopardy clause, except to say this: the TENS OF THOUSANDS of arguments, in our Judicial system against this practice, is reminiscent of what I said in regards to the Fourth Amendment violations by the District Attorneys- they are NOT upholding the principals of the Constitution as they claim – but are fighting them to their own benefit (see Findlaw for even more, detailed explanations).

''It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.'' (Justice Frankfurter)

Standing by itself, the phrase ''due process'' would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that ''due process of law'' would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. ''It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will.'' (Lessee v. Hoboken) Let us begin by examining the more recent, “Adam Wash Act.”

On December 7, 2006, in U.S. v. Crowell, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio held that the Adam Walsh Act's requirement that specific pretrial release conditions be imposed on all defendants accused of certain crimes violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause, and separation of powers. So, the question presents itself – is the District Attorney’s (and Judge’s) right to impose “pretrial” conditions on an individual’s release, a direct violation of the Constitution? Here’s where the Grand Jury indictments come in – for no person shall be deprived of life OR liberty, without the due process of law. But, in a grand jury indictment, for the few states that still choose to against the WORLD WIDE accepted standard and use this unconstitutional and outdated method, that IS due process. Yes – you are guilty. I define that by: the imposing of legal restrictions, as would be imposed on an individual found guilty of a crime in a court of law. You are guilty, because they impose limitations on you: curfews; use of the internet; the ability to drive; to go to a public bar; to go into certain locations; to possess legal and lawful items; and so on. You are guilty, and these impositions will continue to be placed upon you until such time as you can be proven innocent. Otherwise, if you are found guilty, then these impositions are increased and you are PUNISHED TWICE.

That’s…. real…. Constitutional.. isn’t it?

Finally comes the matter of personal property being taken for public use. Let me put this to you in the most clear and simple matter possible: search and seizure. The taking of your belongings, for examination by law enforcement, use as evidence in grand jury indictments (and court hearings), is a direct counterpart to the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. Perhaps some of you might be thinking: “Well, this means they can’t take your T.V. to watch it for themselves.” Why? That would deprive you of the item’s: 1) ownership, 2) use, 3) freedom of liberty and 4) your Constitutional rights as they apply here.

But, what’s the difference? Whether the State’s taking your belongings to “build a case,” in which they are committing all four infringements listed in the previous paragraph, or to “use it for their own, personal reasons,” – it’s the same thing! Your items are in their possession for their use. Your items will now “profit” them. Not only will YOUR possessions be used against you – but they will be used for THEIR profit. If we were talking something as simple as unlawfully downloaded music, which you cannot legally possess, then, that would be something that could possibly be debated. But, if that music was on your computer, where you also kept your personal files, your letters, your email, your taxes and whatnot – then they are DIRECTLY violating the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution by keeping those items – WITHOUT just compensation.

Let me give you an example: Your computer’s taken under the false pretense of an accusation. But, in Oregon, false pretenses count as probable cause in the eyes of the law (somehow – that too – is believed to be “Constitutional??”). Your tax records are on there and you have them nowhere else. The IRS or Dept. of Revenue come knocking at your door, claiming you made a mistake in your tax filings seven years ago and owe them $50,000.00. The only proof you have is on your computer – but the State, without just compensation (which would mean equal and fair – not of value – of content – clearly stating that ALL of your information could be duplicated and returned to you immediately so you were NOT deprived of your belongings without said compensation), is preventing you from presenting your case. Now, the IRS/DOR, garnish your wages. You lose your home, your vehicle, can’t afford your meds and lose your health.

THIS IS EXACTLY why the Fifth Amendment exists. To overcome such dangerous situations that not only infringe upon your liberty – but YOUR LIFE!! However, the Oregon District Attorney’s Office, even in light of precedence set by the State Courts and multiple other States, will hold onto your valuables and abuse their power and privileges over you. Why? If you simply plead guilty or no contest -  your items are returned. You take the penalty, pay the fines (probably only around $3,000 or so – just losing your car, not your home or health), they get PAID for doing this to you, and the Constitution – well – it means NOTHING.

Does the Oregon D.A.’s office uphold the Constitution, as per their mission statement, the first Doctrine, as it pertains to the Fifth Amendment?

No. They argue and fight and spend OUR taxpayer dollars, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. Once again – we have DIRECT EVIDENCE, that their office is lying, violating our Constitutional rights, and doing so without any manner of checks or balances. Of course, Oregon believes in Grand Juries – the “once upon a time” check and balance to prosecutions, and, in that corruption, has more prosecutions, per capita, than almost EVERY other State in the Union, justifying the taking of children and offering them up to rape, death and abuse; the imprisoning of innocent people, even before trial; and the continued abuse of power that remains unchecked.

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

First, let me point out the emphasis I maid above on: accused. That means: not guilty of, not yet determined to be guilty of, and only by mere “accusation,” has been brought forth for trial (refer to 5^th Amendment post on pretrial punishments). But, Congress HAS instituted laws that directly and blatantly violate the premises upon which the Sixth Amendment rests:

On January 28, 2008, in U.S. v. Winslow, Judge Smith, D. Alaska, found that the government's conditions for the defense's review of the computer hard-drive seized in the case violated the defendant's due process, fair trial and Sixth Amendment rights. As a result, the court ordered the government to provide the defense attorney with a copy of the hard drive, under specified conditions. Is this isolated? No. And, I’ve been trying to avoid ‘specifics,’ to avoid the unnecessary argument as to whether these violations are limited. The fact is, that Oregon has been putting more people in prison, for a violation of the Adam Walsh Act and associated laws, without a trial or hearing, because the Defense Attorneys, even those who are paid, are recommending that their clients automatically say “no contest,” because the Attorneys KNOW, they cannot adequately provide for their client’s defense. You can go to the State of Oregon’s, Public Defender website and read the numerous articles on this FACT, for yourself.

What’s really at the heart of the matter here though, is the violation of the Constitutional Right to confront the witnesses and the evidence. The Oregon D.A.’s office PREVENTS any “accused” individual from confronting their offender, in a court room, for many types of crimes, including sex offense. You cannot force the Courts to have to listen to the possibility that someone is lying, or that the ACCUSORS DON’T EVEN EXIST!! Yes – you cannot even prove that they are NOT REAL!! This has given way to the Oregon D.A.’s office blatantly abusing their power by trying cases solely upon “Circumstantial Evidence.”

In such cases where ONLY circumstantial evidence exists, the idea is to convince the trier of fact (a Judge or Jury), that you are probably MORE guilty, than not. And, in cases of internet pornography, murder, theft, and other such cases, the D.A. will present the so-called “evidence” to the trier of fact to help establish their disgust or anger against you. Do you need to see a picture of a nude child to determine that they are a nude child? Do you need to see the picture of a dead body to determine the individual is actually dead? Isn’t that what evidentiary hearings are for? To prove whether or not the evidence is real?

Here’s the catch. The Sixth Amendment does NOT say you are entitled to ‘competent’ or ‘effective’ counsel. It does not guarantee you protection against attorney’s who just want to take the money and run. Individual States are supposed to do that. And, where the D.A.’s office claims that part of its “mission,” is to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity, the question is whether or not, their trying a case against you where you are not provided with effective or adequate counsel, is within the boundaries of “skill, honor and integrity?” I would argue that clearly, it’s not.

But, how do you even get a “fair” trial in front of a so-called, “jury of your peers?” The mere definition is an oxymoron. A Jury of my peers, that represents the peoples’ choice in this matter, is not 13 people sitting on a witness stand. It’s half a million people, it’s the entire nation. In fact, it goes so far as to be: NONE of the above. The truth is, that Jury, without any factual evidence such as “Witnesses to the crime,” are only being presented with evidence. And, in many cases, it is NOT EVEN evidence that a crime occurred! Ah, there lies the rub that makes calamity of so long life….

In Internet crimes, where the content of an individual’s computer contains contraband, the State and Federal laws BOTH, clearly state, that the crime is not in the mere possession of the evidence, in a digital format (as such would violate an individual’s free right to legally copy music they own and would most CERTAINLY violate the 4^th Amendment right to be secure in your personal and private belongings), but in the knowing downloading, accessing, storing and use (and distribution in certain instances) of that material. If I show you a hard disk with music on it that I believe the defendant had accessed off the Internet, I did not show you their ‘knowing’ download, just my opinion that it “more likely than not, beyond a ‘reasonable,’ doubt, occurred.” But, what is the reasonable doubt? Who determines what’s reasonable? A Jury of 13 people that don’t know me, anything about my values and morals, anything about my history or life or even what actually happened at the time this supposed ‘download’ occurred? Maybe a jury of technically incompetent individuals who don’t know enough to understand the whole entire “hacking/identity theft” industry? And, that’s where the D.A. comes in…

You see, the D.A. is permitted to be involved in the jury selection process. Why? Is that to ensure fairness to you? Of course not, they want to ensure there’s no bias against them, right? What bias is there – when YOU are the accused, YOU are the one being falsely accused of committing terrible and horrific acts against the welfare of those 13 people judging you. The only purpose the D.A. has, and you can read this on the NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S WEBSITE, under the area of articles, where they list a specific article pertaining to the Jury Selection Process in digital crimes. It specifically states that: “Most jurors have an 8^th grade intellect…” it goes on to say that it is imperative that the D.A. see to it that technically savvy individuals NOT be chosen for the jury, because they could identify the holes in the D.A.’s case, where it’s actually impossible to prove an individual was in front of their computer. It also states that: Completely unsavvy people should not be selected either, because their lack of computer knowledge will make it too difficult for you to explain to them that someone is guilty when you can’t actually prove that guilt. Instead, an individual of bare-minimum computer skills must be chosen, as they will be able to only understand that computers contain data, good or bad, but not understand the principals of how you actually “identify WHO” was on the computer and “who” committed the crime.

Okay – unconstitutional?

"....by an impartial jury...."

How much MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL would you like to make this? What about the TV and media CONSTANTLY blasting horror stories about these types of crimes, creating an ENTIRE SOCIETY that is driven to be pre-determinately against the Defendant? If this is not an absolute violation by the D.A.’s office, ESPECIALLY in Oregon, I don’t know what is:

"….Pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity,"

How much MORE against the D.A.’s so-called, “mission,” could this be? In fact – it gets worse. The State of Oregon has had it argued, with the help of the D.A.’s office, to reduce payment for Defense counsel and reduce the amount of financial aid provided by the Oregon Public Defender’s Financial Assistance office, making it virtually impossible for the Defense to adequately mount a case!! Folks – you can go online and read all this for yourself. I, sadly, cannot. As I write this, I do so with a pen and paper, using notes provided for me by my brother, because of some of the very issues that exist in this one, exact violation of the Constitution, and amongst others.

How many more INNOCENT people will have to be released from prison before someone realizes, that the inability to hold the D.A.’s office accountable to their “mission” statement, is perpetuating the violation of our rights?

Has the D.A. upheld the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

No, they haven’t. They have abused their authority to help select bias juries, to falsely and wrongly influence them, in the MIDDLE OF A TRIAL, without punishment for doing so, to prevent the Defense from proving his innocence – and for what? The “pursuit of justice?” When is it a pursuit of “justice,” when you blockade the “accused,” from proving their innocence? When is it a “pursuit of justice,” when you present so-called ‘evidence,’ to a legally unknowledgeable jury, falsely making them ‘believe,’ it’s evidence of a crime? When is it justice when you work to make the jury ‘hate’ the defendant, rather than rely upon facts?

When is it the pursuit of justice with SKILL, HONOR and INTEGRITY, when you try people based on the possibility they committed the crime, not the facts? Is this protecting us? Did this actually protect the crime victims’ rights (that is – going after the wrong person and possibly letting the guilty one free to do it again)? Is this supporting the Constitution of the United States, as claimed by the Oregon’s D.A. office?

No - not the movie. If you came for that - go home. I'm talking about one of the government's REAL watchmen... one of their most dangerous watchment.... The department of human services - child protective services.

Oh.. but they save us... they help all the poor, abused children.

Sure they do. Kind of like bleach will clean your intenstinal track of any impurities (NOTE - DISCLAIMER - DON'T DRINK BLEACH OR YOU'RE A FRAKING IDIOT WHO NEEDED TO BE WORKED OUT OF THE BREEDING CHAIN ANYWAY BECAUSE IT WILL KILL YOU - This is a METAPHOR - for those of you too STUPID - to know the difference). Sure... bleach cleans out every last poison, toxin and impurity your body has. This includes most of your intestines, your stomach and heck, it will even get rid of YOU! Why? Because it WILL kill you. Not "May" or "Could" - it "Will."

• The economy has failed.
• Democracy has failed.
• Capitalism has failed.
• Greed has led us down the poophole.
• Churches have quit offering the truth.
• The government's level of corruption is at an all-time high.
• Government spending is out of control.
• Our future generations are about to be totally screwed.
• We NEED change NOW - not tomorrow or in a few years, NOW.
• IF change doesn't happen, all of us alive today, WILL feel the terrible effects before it's over - and we WILL suffer too.

• Hey, the economy will get better, don't worry.. spend, spend, spend!
• The Government's not responsible... past government's were, and this is a brand new day and age of honesty and integrity!
• Don't blame corporate America, corporate greed is a good thing, it stimulates fair growth for small businesses and all of us.
• You have every RIGHT to DEMAND MORE money... and we SHOULD spend more.. it's a good thing...
• Separation of Church and State is an 'old school' philosophy, we need to do it Rome's way, where the government commands religion and policies exist to FORCE specific variations in faith...
• Our politicians are there for US! They love us and care! They won't do ANYTHING that we wouldn't want them to do!
• Don't worry about the 'free' money, we'll print more. After all, if you still have checks in your checkbook, are you REALLY broke?
• The future generations don't know what's good for them. We do. We'll fix it.. just wait it out and see.. and if it's too late to fix it later, well, then we can all look back and laugh at this, right?
• Change will come, just keep trudging away in your lives, and you'll see... aren't things getting better right now?
• It's our job today, to care about tomorrow, and we can make the difference, we'll just add the taxation later on... and of course, there's no need to concern ourselves with a 400% tax increase on future generations... they'll have TONS of money, won't they?