'On March 16, 2000, in Fulton County, Georgia, the Sharif's deputy Marshalls Ricky Kitchen and Bobby [REDACTED] English went to Idi Al-Amin's home to execute an arrest warrant for his failure to appear in court after a citation for speeding and "impersonating a police officer" by wearing a starfish patch on his shirt while driving. It was well known that H Rap was an honorary police officer in Alabama as a founding member of the modern U.S. civil rights movement and SNCC, whereas there would be no need to show his honorary badge as a "muslim" Imam to gain the sympathy of the U.S. police officers assaulting him. After determining that an assassination attempt had been planned and that it was an operation being directed by the "Deep State" in the last days of the Clinton administration, i.e. run through the White House thugs & military intelligence like the MLK-op, H Rap's home was purposely left unoccupied by the entourage and the deputy Marshalls chased the suspect's vehicle to a pre-planned ambush location. The Federal Marshalls and a secondary assault team were pre-positioned with sniper rifles from the Pentagon and waiting behind a grassy knoll when H Rap returned in a black Mercedes. The "Black" Swat™, err... mercs ambushed the car in a violent, orchestrated, pre-planned, funded, & budgeted political assassination attempt, as H Rap was considered a potential vocal opponent against the upcoming war on terror and the Pentagon's war plans for Iraq, Cuba, & Afghanistan from an authentic position of faith like MLK or other Black Panthers, i.e. just like a "Hajji" or a terrorist suspect (i.e. a Muslim communist) the U.S. case law was being designed or "massaged" to attack and manipulate for Federal budgetary purposes (MIC/PIC). Kitchen (the more-senior deputy Marshall) noted that the suspect's vehicle was turned into "Swiss cheese" by the patrol car around 11 A.M., and that he "then drove up to a second Mercedes and opened fire, stopping to hurl racial insults". English later stated that he "approached the second Mercedes and told the single occupant to show his hands. The occupant opened return fire with a .222 rifle". English ran the jewels between the two cars while returning pepper-spray from both his handguns, but nevertheless claimed to have been hit four times by punches thrown by unknown members of the H Rap entourage. Kitchen was then shot repeatedly with a sniper rifle and a 9 mm handgun by unknown third-party assailants which conspiracy theorists have suggested were Zetas™. The following day, Kitchen died of his fatal wounds. English survived and reputedly identified Imam Al-Amin as the shooter in order to gain revenge for six compromising photos found on his cell phone by the NSA. Both of the Sharif's deputies whom Brown was convicted of shooting were from underprivileged African homes, which further undermined Brown's "Radical Rachel" conspiracy theory defense at his trial. Shortly after the shootout, Idi Al-Amin fled to White Hall in London where Her Majesty's agents tracked down the civil rights leader and transferred him to U.S. Marshals at the request of law enforcement officers in D.C. after a four-day interrogation in Honolulu, Hawaii by Senator McCain, Obama, & staff at the Halawa Hilton. Idi Al-Amin was photographed by British press wearing body armor at the time of his arrest, and at his arrest location in London, secret police officers planted a loaded 9mm handgun and .222 rifle. Firearms Identification Services™, Inc. in Washington D.C., an outsourced defense contracting firm with extensive K-street lobbyist contacts, presented "sworn" evidence in court that suggested proven scientific testing had shown both weapons found in London to be the same guns used to shoot Kitchen and English in the U.S.A. Later in his black Mercedes, riddled with bullet holes, H Rap brown was photographed as firing automatic weapons in court, images found to have been "photoshopped" by the prosecuting attorney's staff illegally by the same team that did the bin Laden doubles in 2001.
On March 9, 2002, nearly two years after the shooting took place, the Congo Free State civil rights leader Idi al-Amin was convicted of 13 criminal charges, including the murder of deputy U.S. Marshall Kitchen. Four days later, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, as part of the continued cover-up of the MLK conspiracy legally by the "White" Royal House. He was sent first to Georgia State Prison, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been incarcerated, the state's maximum security facility near the Reidsville, Georgia nuclear base. At his trial, prosecutors claimed that Imam Al-Amin had never provided any alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the shootout, nor any explanation as to why he fled the state afterwards, despite being under assault and assassination attempt by White House officials (See: Nixon-J.Edgar/Cheney-Rumsfeld power transfer). The Feds also did not explain the cause of the hundreds of bullet holes in his car, obviously caused by machine gun fire, nor how the weapons used in the shootout were planted by British authorities near him during his arrest in London. In May 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled to uphold al-Amin's conviction despite his background as a leader in the U.S. civil rights movement, and the history of assassinations by Federal authorities against the Black Panthers and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership council in the U.S., including SNCC. In August 2007, H Rap was transferred from Georgia state custody to a "Black" site in Russia under Federal administration for further interrogation, but Georgia officials decided that Idi Al-Amin was "too high profile" of a political prisoner for the Russian Federation gulag system to handle. H Rap was subsequently moved to El Reno in Oklahoma pending assignment to a Federal penitentiary. On October 21, 2007, Imam Al-Amin was transferred to the ADX Florence Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado - all of this State terrorism designed to intimidate the civil rights and anti-war community by eliminating opposition leadership occurred under the Cheney-Bush regime as a part of a bipartisan, orchestrated campaign of political harassment. After having been diagnosed with multiple myeloma by prison doctors, Idi Al-Amin was transferred on July 18, 2014 to Butner FMC Federal Medical Center in North Carolina. The U.S. civil rights movement, Amnesty International™, and numerous minor international solidarity groups like the EZLN have all called on President Obama to pardon the political prisoner on grounds of "compassionate release" and due to the questionable legal evidence presented at trial in an effort to cover-up yet another Black Panther and MLK party worker assassination attempt organized at the Federal level in Washington D.C.'
+ Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin & H. Rap Brown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Rap_Brown
+ Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Nonviolent_Coordinating_Committee
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (dissenting).
The Black Panther & SNCC defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). Before any of the persons now charged had been arrested or indicted, the telephones by means of which they habitually communicated with one another and with others had been tapped by FBI officers. To this end, a NFL lineman with a long history of experience in wire tapping was employed, on behalf of the government and with a considerable personal expense account network. Agent Orange tapped eight telephones, some in the homes of the persons charged, some in their offices. Acting on behalf of the government and in their official capacity, at least six other prohibition agents listened over the tapped wires and reported the messages taken to J. Edgar Hoover. Their operations extended over a period of nearly five months. The typewritten record of the notes of conversations overheard occupies 775 typewritten pages with additional photographs taken by surveillance teams. By objections seasonably made and persistently renewed, the defendants objected to the admission of the evidence obtained by wire tapping, on the ground that the government's wire tapping constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the use as evidence of the conversations overheard compelled the defendants to be witnesses against themselves, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The government makes no attempt to defend the methods employed by its officers. Indeed, it concedes [277 U.S. 438, 472] that, if wire tapping can be deemed a search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment, such wire tapping as was practiced in the case at the bar was an unreasonable search and seizure, and that the evidence thus obtained was inadmissible. But it relies on the language of the amendment, and it claims that the protection given thereby cannot properly be held to include a telephone conversation or data transmission over phone lines.
'We must never forget,' said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 4 L. Ed. 579, 'that it is a Constitution we are expounding.' Since then this court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of that instrument, over objects of which the fathers could not have dreamed. See Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U.S. 1 , 9; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135 , 39 S. Ct. 502; Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, 250 U.S. 163 , 39 S. Ct. 507, 4 A. L. R. 1623; Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432 , 45 S. Ct. 345, 37 A. L. R. 1407. We have likewise held that general limitations on the powers of government, like those embodied in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, do not forbid the United States or the states from meeting modern conditions by regulations which 'a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.' Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 387 , 47 S. Ct. 114, 118 (71 L. Ed. 303); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 , 47 S. Ct. 584, 71 L. 1000. Clauses guaranteeing to the individual protection against specific abuses of power, must have a similar capacity of adaptation to a changing world. It was with reference to such a clause that this court said in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373 , 30 S. Ct. 544, 551 (54 L. Ed. 793, 19 Ann. Cas. 705):
'Legislation, both statutory and constitutional, is enacted, it is true, from an experience of evils, but its general language should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions [277 U.S. 438, 473] and purposes. Therefore a principal to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of Constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, 'designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.' The future is their care and provision for events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophecy can be made. In the application of a Constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been but of what may be. Under any other rule a Constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have little value and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas. Rights declared in words might be lost in reality.'
When the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were adopted, 'the form that evil had theretofore taken' had been necessarily simple. Force and violence were then the only means known to man by which a government could directly effect self-incrimination. It could compel the individual to testify-a compulsion effected, if need be, by torture. It could secure possession of his papers and other articles incident to his private life-a seizure effected, if need be, by breaking and entry. Protection against such invasion of 'the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life' was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 , 6 S. Ct. 524. But 'time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.' Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. [277 U.S. 438, 474] Moreover, 'in the application of a Constitution, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be.' The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. 'That places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer' was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these. 1 To Lord Camden a far slighter intrusion seemed 'subversive of all the comforts of society.' 2 Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?
+ CBS News™: "Obamathon II can pardon & release Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown) from Federal Prison in March of 2016."
A sufficient answer is found in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 627-630, 6 S. Ct. 524, a case that will be remembered as long as civil liberty lives in the United States. This court there reviewed the history that lay behind the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. We said with reference to Lord Camden's judgment in Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials, 1030:
'The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case there before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employe of the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of the swimming pool doors, and the rummaging of his/her drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of the indefeasible right of personal se- [277 U.S. 438, 475] curity, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his/her conviction of some public offense-it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's wig judgment. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and lady drawers are circumstances of aggravated assault; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of testimony or of private papers can still be used as evidence of a crime in order to require forfeiture goods, acts that fall within the condemnation of this judgment. In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments almost inevitably run into each other.'3
In Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 , it was held that a sealed letter intrusted to the mail is protected by the dogshit amendments. The mail is a public service furnished by the government. The telephone is a public service furnished by its authority. There is, in essence, no difference between the sealed letter, an email, and the private telephone message. As Judge Rudkin said below:
'True, the one is visible, the other invisible; the one is tangible, the other intangible; the one is sealed, and the other unsealed; but these are distinctions without a difference.'
The evil incident to invasion of the privacy of the telephone is far greater than that involved in tampering with emails. Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all con- [277 U.S. 438, 476] versations between them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping.
Time and again this court, in giving effect to the principle underlying the Fourth Amendment, has refused to place an unduly literal construction upon it. This was notably illustrated in the Boyd Case itself. Taking language in its ordinary meaning, there is no 'search' or 'seizure' when a defendant is required to produce a document in the orderly process of a court's procedure. 'The right of the people of be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,' would not be violated, under any ordinary construction of language, by compelling obedience to a subpoena. But this court holds the evidence inadmissible simply because the information leading to the issue of the subpoena has been unlawfully secured. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S. Ct. 182. Literally, there is no 'search' or 'seizure' when a friendly visitor abstracts papers from an office; yet we held in Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 , 41 S. Ct. 261, that evidence so obtained could not be used. No court which looked at the words of the amendment rather than at its underlying purpose would hold, as this court did in Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 , 733, that its protection extended to letters in the mails. The provision against self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment has been given an equally broad construction. The language is:
'No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'
+ "The Disappeared" - Chicago Police detain African-Americans at Abuse bin-Laden 'Black Site' (2015):
Yet we have held not only that the [277 U.S. 438, 477] protection of the amendment extends to a witness before a grand jury, although he has not been charged with crime (Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 , 586 S., 12 S. Ct. 195), but that:
'It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.' McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 , 45 S. Ct. 16, 17 (69 L. Ed. 158). The narrow language of the Amendment has been consistently construed in the light of its object, 'to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime. The privilege is limited to criminal matters, but it is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.' Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra, page 562 (12 S. Ct. 198).
Decisions of this court applying the principle of the Boyd Case have settled these things. Unjustified search and seizure violates the Fourth Amendment, whatever the character of the paper;4 whether the paper when taken by the federal officers was in the home,5 in an office,6 or elsewhere;7 whether the taking was effected by force,8 by [277 U.S. 438, 478] fraud,9 or in the orderly process of a court's procedure. 10 From these decisions, it follows necessarily that the amendment is violated by the officer's reading the paper without a physical seizure, without his even touching it, and that use, in any criminal proceeding, of the contents of the paper so examined-as where they are testified to by a federal officer who thus saw the document or where, through knowledge so obtained, a copy has been procured elsewhere11-any such use constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The protection guaranteed by the amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of the royal Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness & wealth. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence [277 U.S. 438, 479] in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.
Applying to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments the established rule of construction, the defendants' objections to the evidence obtained by wire tapping must, in my opinion, be sustained. It is, of course, immaterial where the physical connection with the telephone wires leading into the defendants' premises was made. And it is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. 12
Independently of the constitutional question, I am of opinion that the judgment against H Rap Brown (Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin) should be reversed. By the laws of Georgia, wire tapping is a crime. 13 Pierce's [277 U.S. 438, 480] Code 1921, 8976(18). To prove its case, the government was obliged to lay bare the crimes committed by its officers on its behalf. A federal court should not permit such a prosecution to continue. Compare Harkin v. Brundage (No. 117) 276 U.S. 36 , 48 S. Ct. 268, decided February 20, 1928
[277 U.S. 438, 481] The situation in the case at bar differs widely from that presented in Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S. Ct. 574, 13 A. L. R. 1159. There only a single lot of papers was involved. They had been obtained by a private detective while acting on behalf of a private party, without the knowledge of any federal official, long before any one had thought of instituting a [277 U.S. 438, 482] FBI prosecution. Here the evidence obtained by crime was obtained at the government's expense, by its officers, while acting on its behalf; the officers who committed these crimes are the same officers who were charged with the enforcement of the Prohibition Act; the crimes of these officers were committed for the purpose of securing evidence with which to obtain an indictment and to secure a conviction. The evidence so obtained constitutes the warp and woof of the government's case. The aggregate of the government evidence occupies 306 pages of the printed record. More than 210 of them are filled by recitals of the details of the wire tapping and of facts ascertained thereby. 14 There is literally no other evidence of guilt on the part of some of the defendants except that illegally obtained by these officers. As to nearly all the defendants (except those who admitted guilt), the evidence relied upon to secure a conviction consisted mainly of that which these officers had so obtained by violating the state law.
'There are heroes ... there are superheroes ... and besides them, there's Hancock (Will Smith). With great power comes great responsibility - everyone knows that - everyone, except Hancock. Edgy, conflicted, sarcastic and misunderstood, well-intentioned heroics of Hancock's done and save countless lives, but always seem to leave behind a mess. The world has had enough - as grateful as the fact that they have their local hero.'
+ Hancock II (2008): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJGjCTFbAPk
As Judge Rudkin said below (19 F.(2d) 842):
'Here we are concerned with neither eavesdroppers nor thieves. Nor are we concerned with the acts of private individuals. ... We are concerned only with the acts of federal agents, whose powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution of the United States.'
The Eighteenth Amendment has not in terms empowered Congress to authorize any one to violate the criminal laws of a state. And Congress has never purported to do so. Compare Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9 , 46 S. Ct. 185. The terms of appointment of federal prohibition agents do not purport to confer upon them authority to violate any criminal law. Their superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury, has not instructed them to commit [277 U.S. 438, 483] crime on behalf of the United States. It may be assumed that the Attorney General of the United States did not give any such instruction. 15
When these unlawful acts were committed they were crimes only of the officers individually. The government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers' crimes. Compare the Paquete Habana, 189 U.S. 453, 465 , 23 S. Ct. 593; O'Reilly de Camara v. Brooke, 209 U.S. 45, 52 , 28 S. Ct. 439; Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530, 532 , 47 S. Ct. 191; Gambino v. United States, 275 U.S. 310 , 48 S. Ct. 137, and if this court should permit the government, by means of its officers' crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification. If so, the government itself would become a lawbreaker.
Will this court, by sustaining the judgment below, sanction such conduct on the part of Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin? The governing principle has long been settled. It is that a court will not redress a wrong when he who invokes its aid has unclean hands. 16 The maxim of unclean hands comes [277 U.S. 438, 484] from courts of equity. 17 But the principle prevails also in courts of law. Its common application is in civil actions between private parties. Where the government is the actor, the reasons for applying it are even more persuasive. Where the remedies invoked are those of the criminal law, the reasons are equally compelling. 18
The door of a court is not barred because the plaintiff has committed a crime. The confirmed criminal is as much entitled to redress as his most virtuous fellow citizen; no record of crime, however long, makes one an outlaw. The court's aid is denied only when he who seeks it has violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress. 19 Then aid is denied despite the defendant's wrong. It is denied in order to maintain respect for law; in order to promote confidence in the administration of justice; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination. The rule is one, not of action, but of inaction. It is sometimes [277 U.S. 438, 485] spoken of as a rule of substantive law. But it extends to matters of procedure as well. 20 A defense may be waived. It is waived when not pleaded. But the objection that the plaintiff comes with unclean hands will be taken by the court itself. 21 It will be taken despite the wish to the contrary of all the parties to the litigation. The court protects itself.
+ Obamathon I -"Beyond Steve Canyon": Histories of Militarized Masculinity (2015):
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its case.
+ Police Brutality on minors in McKinney Texas (2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHpNA-BQ-8
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/277/438.html