Posted on 09/18/2010 11:56:52 PM PDT by Cindy
SNIPPET: " It was found at the front door of the Islamic Center of East Lansing."
SNIPPET: "The department is offering $10,000 for any information that would lead to the identification and prosecution of those responsible for this act.
Those with information are asked to call Det. Sherief Fadly..."
(Excerpt) Read more at wlns.com ...
Might I add that the people through their contract, the US Constitution, with their government have given the government through both houses of congress the authority to establish courts, appoint judges and make laws that are to be enforced by those courts.
NOWHERE in the constitution does it give any PRIVATE organization or RELIGION the judicial authority to deprive any American of his life, liberty, property or due process of law unless granted by the laws of the United States and individual states and even then those laws still must pass constutional muster.
The individuals offering such rewards and are complicit in the intimidation or prosecution of any book burners need to cite where under the constitution they are granted the specific authority or be swiftly prosecuted, incarcerated and/or given substantial fines. And, that goes for the FBI or any governmental organization for their abuse of authority.
It's too early in the morning for me to get into all the issues this raises, and they are numerous, but I couldn't contain myself when I read this post! My hope is I got some of the points across to start people thinking about what's transpiring.
So, if you buy an American flag and burn it in public, it’s free speech, but if you buy a Koran and burn it in public, it’s a felony?
I also think this would have had more validity had they assigned Det. Joe Smith to investigate.
It was Virg Benero...
I note that the news release fails to mention any identifying characteristics of the person who turned himself in. Could it be because he was Middle-Eastern and wanted to foment faux outrage? Could it be that he “turned himself in” because the local Imam told him to make a deal and keep it quiet because the backlash if this were to become public would be very heated?
Inquiring minds want to know.
. . . what’s the reward for information leading to an arrest of those responsible for the placing of a crucifix in a vat of urine ?
Be gone! I’m His Royal Highness Phillip the Second of Spain. :-)
Oil Sheik money.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
The individual voluntarily surrendered to police officials on Wednesday, Sept. 15 following the establishment of a $10,000 reward fund. None of the reward funds were paid out to obtain the information leading to the individual’s identity.
Why didn't the schmuck allow a friend to snitch him out and collect the reward? Kidding, folks
“I am Spartacus” ping. Thanks grellis.
“The individuals offering such rewards and are complicit in the intimidation or prosecution of any book burners need to cite where under the constitution they are granted the specific authority or be swiftly prosecuted, incarcerated and/or given substantial fines.”
A good point. The Constitution does not really proscribe the acts of private individuals or organizations except if that action violates the rights of another individual. Therefore, if called on the legal carpet, they need to justify that they are not violating someone else’s right, which is a different standard than trying to find a specific provision in the Constitution to authorize their act. Private groups and individuals, often the families of criminal victims, offer rewards all the time. That, in itself isn’t unconstitutional.
The Constitution generally limits government instead of the individual or private organization. So, to me, the issue is whether the law enforcement and government organizations have constitutional authority to assist—by making the reward public, by encouraging people to report information to the police, or by assisting in authorizing payment of the reward—when there is no evidence of a crime which might have been violated by the perpetrator.
So it is not the private organization offering the reward but the government’s assistance in helping that organization which is suspect and probably unconstitutional.
I think the government has a lot of explaining to do. As you note, they are in the position of enforcing a private matter under what we might call “color of law” and that is a no-no in this country. There are indeed serious legal questions at issue here.
Only if it was a black church.
An interesting read concerning the Alinsky way: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Bingo!
HMMM... SPEAKING OF WEIRD:
Why Did Huma Abedin Feel the Need to Bring the Desecration of a Koran to Hillary Clinton’s Attn?
Benweingarten.com ^ | 2015-09-01 | Ben Weingarten
Posted on ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2015‎ ‎1‎:‎04‎:‎41‎ ‎PM by fredericbastiat1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.