fufor's unregelmässige news

Hindenburg und Putin
06.12.2007

Im Jahre 1932, am Ende des liberalen Gesetzgebungsstaates der Weimarer Republik, schrieb Carl Schmitt, der bedeutendste Jurist des 20. Jahrhunderts, eine Abhandlung über „Legalität und Legitimität“. Darin verlangte er von Hindenburgs verfassungsmäßiger Präsidialdiktatur (die dabei war, ihre Präsidialkabinette Brüning, von Papen und von Schleicher nacheinander auszureizen), die Machtprämie des legalen Staatsoberhauptes für zielgerichtete Plebiszite zu nutzen, welche die grundsätzlichen Mängel der Legalität durch Neugewinnung von Legitimität wettmachen. Diese Plebiszite sollten das Volk vor entscheidbare Alternativen stellen, ihm politische Fragen vorlegen, die mit Ja oder Nein beantwortet werden können und das Reich auf einen Kurs umsteuern, der es vor dem Abgrund der legalen Machtergreifung durch eine Partei oder Bewegung bewahrt, die dann, einmal an der Macht, die Tür der Legalität hinter sich zuschlägt und weitere legale Machtergreifungen mittels verfassungsgesetzlicher Superlegalität verhindert. Carl Schmitt wollte 1932, daß der deutsche Reichspräsident Hindenburg durch Plebiszite Hitler verhindert.

Der russische Reichspräsident Putin hat anscheinend die Lektion des deutschen Denkers begriffen und die russische Parlamentswahl in ein Plebiszit für sich umgewandelt, die seiner Bewegung die verfassungsändernde Zweidrittelmehrheit im Parlament bescherte.

Über den jetzt in Rußland eingetretenen Zustand der Herrschaft der Superlegalität einer Mehrheit, die jede gewünschte Verfassung für sich (sogar mit Ewigkeitsklauseln versehen) völlig legal beschließen kann, schrieb Carl Schmitt damals: „In der Einführung qualifizierter Mehrheiten ist ein Widerspruch gegen das Prinzip des parlamentarisch-demokratischen Gesetzgebungsstaates enthalten, der sich schließlich so weit treiben läßt, daß er in seiner letzten, aber formalistisch folgerichtigen Konsequenz die Legalität selbst als Prinzip legal beseitigt. Die verfassungsändernde Zweidrittelmehrheit könnte den Augenblick ihrer Mehrheit benutzen, um mit Verfassungskraft zu beschließen, daß bestimmte Interessen und Personen in Zukunft auch gegen 100 vH aller Stimmen geschützt, und daß bestimmte Normen für jede Art von Mehrheit oder Einstimmigkeit überhaupt unabänderlich seien. Für ein formalistisch-gegenstandsloses Denken ist das legal, in bester Ordnung und auf legale Weise in Ewigkeit nicht mehr zu beseitigen.“

Im BRD-Grundgesetz mit seinen Ewigkeitsklauseln ist der Albtraum des Carl Schmitt Verfassungswirklichkeit geworden. Vielleicht lernt Putin auch noch diese sehr besondere Lektion des BRD-Grundgesetzes und läßt seine superlegale Mehrheit in die neue russische Verfassung hineinschreiben, daß die Prinzipien des Putinismus ewig und unveränderlich seien, und daß gegen jeden, der es unternehme, die gelenkte Demokratie Rußlands zu beseitigen, Widerstand zu leisten, also ein Bürgerkrieg zu führen sei. Traut Putin sich, das zu tun, dann ist Rußland wirklich in der Mitte Europas, wie sie derzeit verfaßt ist, angekommen.
(yahoo.group deutscheskolleg)

Ex-Präsident von Italien: CIA und Mossad verübten 11.September 2001!!
06.12.2007
FRANCESCO COSSIGA

Rom.
Der ehemalige Staatspräsident von Italien, Francesco Cossiga (amtierte von 1985 bis1992), hat bereits am 30. November 2007 der angesehensten Zeitung Italiens, dem „Corriere della Sera“, ein Interview gegeben, in dem er zu den Attentaten am 11. September 2001 wörtlich folgendes sagte:

“Aus Kreisen nahe dem Palazzo Chigi (dem Sitz der italienischen Regierung), einem wichtigen Zentrum der italienischen Geheimdienste, heißt es, die Nicht-Authentizität des Videos würde von der Tatsache bestätigt, dass Bin Laden in diesem Video gestand, dass
Al Qaida angeblich die Anschläge vom 11.September auf die zwei Türme in New York durchgeführt hat, während alle demokratischen Kreise in Amerika und Europa, vor allem die italienischen Mitte-Links-Kreise, doch wissen, dass die desaströsen Anschläge von der CIA und dem Mossad mit der Hilfe der Zionisten geplant und durchgeführt worden sind, um die arabischen Länder anzuklagen und um die westlichen Mächte dazu zu bewegen, sich an Kriegen im Irak und Afghanistan zu beteiligen.“ (Übersetzung: Stefano Comi, Radio Utopie)

Originaltext und Quelle:

”Da ambienti vicini a Palazzo Chigi, centro nevralgico di direzione dell'intelligence italiana, si fa notare che la non autenticità del video è testimoniata dal fatto che Osama Bin Laden in esso 'confessa' che Al Qaeda sarebbe stato l'autore dell'attentato dell'11 settembre alle due torri in New York, mentre tutti gli ambienti democratici d'America e d'Europa, con in prima linea quelli del centrosinistra italiano, sanno ormai bene che il disastroso attentato è stato pianificato e realizzato dalla CIA americana e dal Mossad con l'aiuto del mondo sionista per mettere sotto accusa i Paesi arabi e per indurre le potenze occidentali ad intervenire sia in Iraq sia in Afghanistan.”

http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml

Francesco Cossiga hatte bereits nach dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs enthüllt, dass er
als Präsident der „einzige politische Kontaktmann“ („l'unico referente politico“) der Terror-Organisation namens „GLADIO“ während des Kalten Krieges gewesen war.

GLADIO war eine Geheimorganisation von NATO, CIA und des britischen MI6 während des Kalten Kriegs. Sie existierte von etwa 1950 bis mindestens 1990 und erstreckte sich über das damalige Westeuropa, Griechenland und die Türkei. Im Zuge der Aufdeckung von Gladio wurde 1990 bekannt, dass Teile der Organisation unter Mitwirkung von staatlichen Organen systematisch und zielgerichtet an gravierenden Terrorakten in mehreren europäischen Ländern beteiligt waren.

GLADIO sollte angeblich im Falle einer Invasion durch die Truppen des Warschauer Paktes als „Stay Behind“- Organisation Anschläge und Attentate hinter den feindlichen Linien verüben. Faktisch waren es mit asymmetrischer Kriegführung („Terrorismus“) vorgehende paramilitärische Einheiten, die - aus Faschisten, Söldnern sowie regulären Soldaten, Agenten und Militäragenten zusammengesetzt - Attentate, Morde und Anschläge in Westeuropa verübten, die dann linken Gruppen in die Schuhe geschoben wurden, um diese zu diskreditieren. Mittlerweile gibt es auch umfangreiches Material in deutscher Sprache bei Wikipedia über GLADIO, nachdem jahrzehntelang in Deutschland darüber geschwiegen wurde. Aufklärung leistete dabei der Schweizer Daniele Ganser.

Nach langen Recherchen italienischer Staatsanwälte hatte am 24. Oktober 1990 der damalige Ministerpräsident Giulio Andreotti im italienischen Abgeordnetenhaus die Existenz von GLADIO gestehen müssen.

Am 22. November 1990 drückte daraufhin das Europäische Parlament seinen „entschiedenen Protest“ aus. Geschehen ist bis heute nichts.

Das Interview von Francesco Cossiga im “Corriere della Sera” am 30. November 2007 wurde weltweit vollständig unterdrückt und verschwiegen. Nur die US- Researcher von „Prison Planet“ entdeckten es und berichteten sofort darüber.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm

So gelangte die Nachricht über Umwege doch noch in den englisch- und deutschsprachigen Sektor der Erde...

Interview in Originalsprache - Quelle aus Italien:
http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml
(yahoo.group)

Why the Council on Foreign Relations Hates Putin
Why Murdoch's Journal Loves Kasparov
December 5, 2007
By MIKE WHITNEY

On Sunday, Putin's party, United Russia, stormed to victory in the country's parliamentary elections with 63 per cent of the vote. It was a romp. United Russia now controls 306 of the 450 seats in the Duma, an overwhelming majority. The balloting was a referendum on Putin's leadership and it passed in a landslide. Now it's certain, that even if Putin steps down as president next year as expected, he will be the dominant player in Russian politics for the foreseeable future.

Vladamir Putin is arguably the most popular leader in Russian history, although you'd never know it by reading the western media. According to a recent survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal, Putin's personal approval rating in November 2007 was 85 per cent, making him the most popular head of state in the world today. Putin's popularity derives from many factors. He is personally clever and charismatic. He is fiercely nationalistic and has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of ordinary Russians and restore the country to its former greatness. He has raised over 20 million Russians out of grinding poverty, improved education, health care and the pension system, (partially) nationalized critical industries, lowered unemployment, increased manufacturing and exports, invigorated Russian markets, strengthened the ruble, raised the overall standard of living, reduced government corruption, jailed or exiled the venal oligarchs, and amassed capital reserves of $450 billion.

Russia is no longer up for grabs like it was after the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin put an end to all of that. He reasserted control over the country's vast resources and he's using them to improve the lives of his own people. This is a real departure from the 1990s, when the drunken Yeltsin steered Russia into economic disaster by following Washington's neoliberal edicts and by selling Russia's Crown Jewels to the vulturous oligarchs. Putin put Russia's house back in order; stabilized the ruble, strengthened economic/military alliances in the region, and removed the corporate gangsters who had stolen Russia's national assets for pennies on the dollar. The oligarchs are now all either in jail or have fled the country. Russia is no longer for sale.

Russia is, once again, a major world power and a vital source of hydrocarbons. It's star is steadily rising just as America's has begun to wane. This may explain why Putin is loathed by the West. Freud might call it petroleum envy, but it's deeper than that. Putin has charted a course for social change that conflicts with basic tenets of neoliberalism, which are the principles which govern US foreign policy. He is not a member of the corporate-banking brotherhood which believes the wealth of the world should be divided among themselves regardless of the suffering or destruction it may cause. Putin's primary focus is Russia; Russia's welfare, Russia's sovereignty and Russia's place in the world. He is not a globalist.

That is why the Bush administration has encircled Russia with military bases, toppled neighboring regimes with its color-coded revolutions, (which were organized by US NGOs and intelligence services) intervened in Russian elections, and threatened to deploy an (allegedly defensive) nuclear weapons system in Eastern Europe. Russia is seen as a potential rival to US imperial ambitions and must be contained or subverted.

In the early years of his presidency, it was believed that Putin would comply with western demands and accept a subordinate role in the US-EU-Israel centric system. But that hasn't happened. Putin has stubbornly defended Russian independence and resisted integration into the prevailing system. .

The triumphalism which swept through Washington after the fall of the Berlin Wall has been replaced with a palpable fear that Russia's power will grow as oil prices continue to soar. The tectonic plates of geopolitical power are gradually shifting eastward. That's why the US has joined in The Great Game and is trying to put down roots in Eurasia. Still, it's easy to imagine a scenario in which America's access to the last great oil and natural gas reserves on the planet--the three trillion barrels of oil and natural gas located in the Caspian Basin---could be completely blocked by a resurgent Russian superpower.

The most powerful of the Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations, recognized this problem early on and decided that US policy towards Russia had to be reworked entirely.

* * *

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is "rolling back democracy" began. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction", Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is no longer possible. They claim that the government has become increasingly authoritarian and that the society is growing less "open and pluralistic".

Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign against Putin has been built. And it is quite an impressive campaign. A Google News search shows roughly 1,400 articles from the various news services on Putin. Virtually all of them contain exactly the same rhetoric, the same buzzwords, the same spurious claims, the same slanders. It is impossible to find even one article out of 1,400 that diverges the slightest bit from the talking points which originated at the Council on foreign Relations.

It's interesting to see to what extent the media has become a propaganda bullhorn for the national security state. Putin's personal approval ratings confirm his enormous popularity, and yet, the media continues to treat him like he's a tyrant. It is utterly incongruous.

In most articles, Putin is disparaged as "anti democratic"; a charge that is never leveled at the Saudi Royal family even though women are forbidden to drive, they must be fully-covered at all times, and can be stoned to death if they are found to be unfaithful. Also, in Saudi Arabia, beheading is still the punishment of choice for capital crimes.

When Saudi King Abdullah visits the US, he is not heaped with scorn for his regimes' repressive treatment of his people. Instead he's rewarded with flattering photos of he and George Bush strolling arm-n-arm through the Crawford sage.

Why is Putin blasted for "rolling back democracy" when American client, Mikhail Saakashvili, arbitrarily declares martial law and deploys his truncheon-wielding Robo-cops to beat protesters senseless before dragging them off to the Georgia gulag? The pictures of Saakashvili's bloody crackdown appeared in the foreign press, but not in the US. Rather, the media had all its cameras focused on Garry Kasparov (contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal and right-wing loony) as he was led off to the Moscow hoosegow in handcuffs for protesting without a permit.

* * *

Putin's real crime is that he serves Russia's national interests rather than the interests of global Capital. He also rejects Washington's "unipolar" world model. As he said in Munich:

"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

"What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization."

He added:

"We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law....We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force -- military force -- in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security."

Well said, Vladimir.

Putin's no saint, but he doesn't deserve the thrashing he gets from the western media.

And a final word on Garry Kasparov

On Sunday, while Putin's party "United Russia" was screeching to a landslide victory, Reuters News was busy taking mug-shots of the stony-faced Kasparov holding up Florida-style ballots claiming the voting was rigged. "They are not just rigging the vote," Kasparov moaned, "They are raping the whole electoral system. These elections are a reminder of Soviet elections when there was no choice.....Putin is going to have a hard time trying to rule like Stalin."

Stalin? So now Putin is Stalin? First of all, when did Reuters begin to take such a keen interest in voting irregularities? It must be a recent development, becuase they were nowhere to be found in the 2000 presidential election. And when did they start to pay attention to "political dissent"? They certainly never wasted any video-footage on the antiwar rallies in the US. Are we to believe that they are more interested in democracy in Russia than America?

And why is Reuters so eager to provide valuable column-space to a washed-up chessmaster who's only interested in making a nuisance of himself by bellyaching about voter fraud? That's not news; it's propaganda.

As for Kasparov and his silly accusations; he should be glad that he lives in Putin's Russia rather than Stalin's or he'd be in leg-irons right now boarding a northbound train to the Siberian outback.

What is Kasparov doing in Moscow anyway? And why is this little man --with virtually no political base -- such a big part of the western media narrative? Is he only there to discredit the election and throw a little more muck on Putin or is there more to it than that?

Garry Kasparov should give up politics and do what he does best; stand-up comedy. Watching Kasparov traipse around Moscow with his basket of sour grapes and his entourage of western media-stooges is like watching "Mr. Bean's Excellent Kremlin Adventure", a particularly lame performance in a dismal B-rated burlesque. It's painful to watch.

Kasparov's party, the "Other Russia" couldn't manage even a 2 per cent rating in the polls. The party is a complete dud. In fact, Reuters even (reluctantly) admits as much in its article.

Here's the clip. Reuters: "Kasparov and his "Other Russia" dissident movement are not standing in Sunday's parliamentary election because they could not get registered as a party. THEY ENJOY LITTLE PUBLIC SUPPORT AMONG RUSSIANS BUT HAVE A BIG FOLLOWING IN THE WEST." (Reuters) "Big following in the West"? Why doesn't that surprise me?

So, in other words, Kasparov has no base of support in Russia, and yet he gets his own camera crew and media team to follow him around recording every silly he says. That's just great. Who do they think he is; Nelson Mandela?

Kasparov is a contributing editor of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; so he already has a regular platform for launching his tirades on the "tyrannical" Mr. Putin. Normally, one doesn't get a spot on the op-ed page of the WSJ unless their politics are somewhere to the right of Augusto Pinochet. That's probably the case with Kasparov, too. In Saturday's edition of the WSJ, Kasparov delivered his latest absurd soliloquy disparaging Putin and recounting his agonizing 5 day ordeal in the Moscow poky.

Although Kasparov has garnered little public support in Russia, he appears to have a loyal following among the Washington elite. According to Wikipedia: "In 1991, Kasparov received the Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy (a US think tank), for anti-Communist resistance and the propagation of democracy. Kasparov was an exceptional recipient since the award is given to "individuals for devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world". Hmmmm...."For devoting their public careers to the defense of the United States and American values around the world"? Isn't that a definition of an American agent?

Again, according to Wikipedia: In April, 2007 it was asserted that Kasparov was a board member of the National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security". Kasparov confirmed this and added that he was removed shortly after he became aware of it. He noted that HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP and suggested he was included in the board by an accident because he received the 1991 Keeper of the Flame award from this organization. But Kasparov maintained his association with the neoconservative leadership by giving speeches at think tanks such as the Hoover Institute."

Here's a list of some of the other fellow travelers who've been given the "Keeper of the Flame Award": 2007-Senator Joe Lieberman. 2004-General Peter Pace. 2003- Paul Wolfowitz. 2002- General Richard Meyers. 1998-Donald Rumsfeld. 1996-Newt Gingrich. 1995-Ronald Reagan. 1990-Casper Weinberger.

Is Kasparov an anomaly or does he fit right in with this coven of far-right loonies? And who are some of the prominent members of the Center for Security Policy? Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, James Roche and Laura Ingraham. Oh, boy. The whole front office of the neocon's cuckoo's nest. Now tell me, dear reader, with friends like that; what should we really think about Kasparov's performance in Moscow? Is he really interested in "democracy promotion" as he claims or is their acting out a script that was prepared in Washington?

In the US, Kasparov has become the focal point of the Russian elections - the primary source of "unbiased" analysis. NPR reiterates his spurious claims every half hour. The other news agencies are no better. He has become the distorted lens through which Americans view Russian democracy. This says a lot more about the choke-hold the neocons still have on the media rather than anything objective about Russia. The Kasparov fiasco gives us a chance to see the inner-workings of the establishment media. It's nothing more than a propaganda bullhorn for far-right organizations executing their bloody imperial strategy. Fidel Castro summed it up best just days ago when he said: "It is the most sophisticated media ever developed by technology, employed to kill human beings and to subjugate or exterminate peoples".
Amen to that, Fidel.
http://tinyurl.com/3bbolf

Hanukkah Hoax: an excerpt from Hoffman's new book
Thursday, December 06, 2007

I did not plan on issuing any part of my forthcoming book in advance of its publication, but in gratitude to the incredibly generous persons whose donations have made the writing of my book possible, I offer this snippet from the chapter on Judaism's holidays.

My book is about 95% complete, not including proof-reading and indexing. The problem is, every time I get ready to declare that it's finished and I start packing up twenty years worth of archives, I come across data that is so indispensable that I can't ignore it. For example, recently I discovered a rabbinic curse on Poland. This is almost completely unknown. It is only discussed in texts intended for Talmidim. It has never (to my knowledge) been published in a gentile book or periodical. I discovered that the rabbis take credit for the tripartite partition of Poland, beginning in 1795, which, save for a brief restitution under Napoleon, continued until 1918. The details will be in my book.

My Judaism archive is an immense expanse and contains a major portion of the scholarly effort of my whole life's work. It is so extensive it could form the basis for a multi-volume encyclopedia on Judaism. Trying to decide what to include and what to exclude in one volume is probably my most difficult task, in addition to raising funds for a proper printing in hard cover with all pages intact.

If you have not yet contributed to this project and would like to help ensure that we can afford to publish the book with all pages intact as I have written it, with no information condensed or deleted, donation details are the end of the excerpt below. Thank you.



THE HANUKKAH HOAX
by Michael A. Hoffman II

Hanukkah is a Talmudic holiday that is observed cursorily in the Israeli state and celebrated in the United States as competition for Christmas, and in order to symbolically assert the supremacy of "Klal Yisroel" (the Judaic people) over the rest of humanity.

During Christmas, 2006, this writer was in San Francisco visiting relatives. I walked to Union Square in downtown, searching for a uniquely Christian Christmas symbol on municipal property (a "Christmas" tree does not qualify, since it is also sacred to the pre-Christian peoples of Europe in the form of the yule tree). Specifically, I was looking for a nativity scene depicting the Holy Family: Jesus, Mary and Joseph. What I found instead was the obligatory illuminated tree of green, and an enormous menorah set up on Union Square by Chabad-Lubavitch, the rabbinic devil-worshipping sect who venerate the goddess Shekhinah.

The shoppers and pagans had their tree; the rabbis had their menorah, and the Holy Family had nothing. This in a "Christian" country ruled by a "Christian" president. What a hoax, like Hanukkah itself, which departs from the Biblical Apocrypha's Book of Maccabees with a ridiculous Talmudic fable of a lamp filled with oil that burns for eight days.

Okay, so it's ridiculous, so what. Plenty of Christian beliefs are equally ridiculous in the eyes of non-Christians. That may be true, but there is one crucial distinction: true Christians don't worship themselves, while the religion of Judaism is predicated upon self-worship.

The secret of Hanukkah was disclosed by Rabbi Levi Isaac ben Meir of Berdichev (known as "the Kedushat Levi" after his eponymous treatise), an important eighteenth century halachic authority, who revealed the fact that lighting the Hanukkah menorah does not commemorate the victory of the Biblical Maccabees. The arcane traditional doctrine of Chazal ("the [rabbinic] sages of blessed memory") concerning Hanukkah is that it actually signifies God’s "delight in the Jewish people" themselves, and their vainglorious celebrations. God provided eight days of oil not as a means of facilitating a victory or of guaranteeing the successful completion of a sacred duty, but rather as a sign (halacha osah mitzvah), of His continuing adoration of the Judaic people, which all the rest of us are supposed to emulate, as we in fact do, whenever we allow a menorah to be erected where a nativity scene is banned.

The Hanukkah menorah is the symbol of the supreme position which the Holy Judaic People occupy in God's eyes. It is not a symbol of a Biblical occurrence. Like all man-made Talmudic traditions intended for self-glorification, Hanukkah has evolved over the centuries into what it is today, another flagrant example of Judaism's complete departure from Biblical texts and verities. It represents the victory not of the Maccabees over the pagans, but of the selective memory of the rabbis over history. This mendacity is the essence of the Talmudic mentality.

Christmas is the story of the incarnation of the Savior of mankind, offering salvation and peace on earth to all men of good will. Hanukkah is an enduring commitment to the dark racial and religious conceit of the rabbinic and Zionist Judaics, disguised as holiday light and cheer for all; as such it is a kind of abbreviation for and summation of the high hoax that is the religion of Judaism itself.

The preceding has been excerpted from "Judaism Discovered" by Michael A. Hoffman II, to be published by Independent History and Research.
http://tinyurl.com/2k5ttw

Court find Unlimited Police Power to Plant GPS on Vehicles
posted: 06 Dec 2007

Planting GPS transmitter on plaintiff's car was not a Fourth Amendment violation

Plaintiff's car was suspected of being at the scene of several burglaries in 2002, and the police decided, after consultation with supervisors, to plant a GPS with a cellphone transmitter on the car. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim failed under Knotts. Morton v. Nassau County Police Dep't, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87559 (E.D. N.Y. November 27, 2007):

"A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another." United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983). The use of the GPS Device did not permit the discovery of any information that could not have obtained by following an automobile traveling on public roads, either physically or through visual surveillance (e.g. through the use of cameras or from a helicopter), conduct that neither requires a warrant nor implicates Fourth Amendment rights. "Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibit[s] the police from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as science and technology afford[s] them." Id. at 282.

In Knotts, law enforcement officials placed a tracking device, or "beeper," inside a barrel of chloroform which was sold to an individual suspected of manufacturing illegal drugs. After the suspect loaded the barrel containing the beeper into his vehicle, the police were able to track his movements. The Court in Knotts held that the law enforcement officials' use of the beeper did not violate the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the movements of an automobile on public roadways, and that the placement of the device did not constitute an unreasonable seizure. Id. Accord United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994, 996 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Gbemisola, 225 F.3d 753, 758-759 (D.C. Cir. 2000); ... Alexandre v. N.Y. City Taxi & Limousine Comm'n, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73642 (S.D.N.Y. September 28, 2007); ....

Plaintiff attempts to distinguish the instant case from Knotts on the basis that the beeper in Knotts was not actually attached to the suspect's car, but rather loaded by the suspect into his own car, whereas here, the GPS Device was attached to Plaintiff's car by the Defendants. This minor distinction is not sufficient to remove the instant case from the ambit of Knotts.

Thus, the use of the GPS Device was not an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Fourth Amendment are dismissed.

Dog alert during a stop was sufficient to justify prolonging the detention. United States v. Aispuro-Medina, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 27571 (10th Cir. November 29, 2007) (unpublished).*

Plaintiff’s mental health seizure was justified by probable cause to believe she was a danger to herself. Morrison v. Bd. of Trs. of Green Twp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87817 (S.D. Ohio November 29, 2007).*

"There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate number which is displayed in plain view, and it is not illegal for a police officer to use license plate information to conduct a check on the vehicle's ownership and registration." The vehicle came back unregistered. United States v. King, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87629 (D. Del. November 29, 2007).*

"After careful consideration of Detective Boos' testimony and a careful review of the application for a search warrant, I am convinced that the affidavit contained no false or misleading information, and that Detective Boos did not knowingly or intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth include any false statements or omit any necessary or material information in the application for the search warrant. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 171-72. Thus, I will deny the motion to suppress." United States v. Charles, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87647 (E.D. Pa. November 29, 2007).*
http://tinyurl.com/2kzm5z