IRS Criminal Tax Bulletin number 200007002 reveals that the communist IRS has authority from our corrupt courts to install electronic tracking devices on your vehicle to learn everything they want about where you travel.  Here is the summary of the court ruling from their bulletin:

No Fourth Amendment Violation in Placing a Tracking Device on a Suspect’s Vehicle

In United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (9^th Cir. 199), United States Forest Service officers identified McIver’s vehicle from surveillance video taken of a marijuana patch located in a national forest.  They traced the tag and learned McIver’s address.  The officers surreptitiously placed two tracking devices on the undercarriage of McIver’s vehicle which was parked outside the curtilage of his residence.  McIver ultimately was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and appealed his conviction to the Ninth Circuit arguing, among other things, the warrantless placement of the tracking devices on his vehicle constituted an unreasonable search and seizure.

Though a question of first impression, the Ninth Circuit found adequate precedent to rule the placement of the devices on the vehicle did not constitute a search.  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of a car because the exterior of a car is thrust into the public eye and thus to examine it does not constitute search.  United States v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986).  The undercarriage is part of the car’s exterior, and as such, is not afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy.  United States Rascon-Ortiz, 944 F.2d 749 (19^th Cir. 1993).  Here, the officers do not pry into a hidden or enclosed area and McIver produced no evidence to show he intended to shield the undercarriage of his vehicle from inspection by others.

The court also rejected McIver’s assertion that the placement of the devices on the vehicle constituted a unlawful seizure.  In United States v. Kar, 468 U.S. 706 (1984) the Supreme Court held a “seizure” occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in property.  The Karo court ruled the placement of a beeper in a can of ether before selling and tracking it to the suspect, was at most a technical trespass on the space occupied by the beeper and was or marginal relevance to establishing constitutional violation.  Applying this principle, the Ninth Circuit found McIver presented no evidence the device deprived him of dominion and control of his vehicle or caused any damage to the electronic components in the vehicle.  Thus, no seizure occurred because there was no meaningful interference with McIver’s possessory interest in the vehicle.

If you want to read the above bulletin yourself, refer to either of the addresses below:

We live in a police state, folks.  The communists have already taken over!  There is a clear violation of the Constitution, ethics, and morality here, no matter how technical the courts got on the issue to evade the truth.  The First Amendment guarantees us a right of free speech and free expression.  That right includes the right to NOT communicate with your government.  What the government has done in the above anecdote, not unlike what the Communists did in the Soviet Union, is created a society of snitches and informants by turning both people and things against others.  The Soviets used people as informants and our communist U.S. government is just a little more sophisticated than that: they engineer and employ things instead of people as snitches, but the result is the same: violation of the First Amendment right to NOT communicate with your government.  George Orwell’s 1984 book predicted this kind of tyranny would happen and its in our midst now.  What are we going to do about it?  Recall that in Orwell’s book, a camera watched your every move in your own home and if you did anything unauthorized, the government would persecute and punish you.  Today’s government is doing exactly that already by making a person’s property into a snitch and an informant on its owner.  This transgression will become increasingly important in a computer and technological age, where no doubt the government will eventually try to install ID chips inside of people and pass laws to force software manufacturers to program their applications to snitch on their owners.  This causes one’s “property”, in effect to “express” the location of its owner to the government, and this violates “freedom of expression” guaranteed by the First Amendment.  Freedom of expression involves more than just speaking, it involves any type of communication or conveyance of intelligence or information, including computer transmissions, radio transmitters, and GPS tracking device records: all of these devices express information about the owner of the property to the government in an unwanted manner.

Expression.  1 a: an act, process, or instance of representing in a medium (as words): UTTERANCE <freedom of ~> b (1): something that manifests, embodies, or symbolizes something  else <this gift is an ~ of my admiration for you> (2): a significant word or phrase (3): a mathematical or logical symbol or a meaningful combination of symbols (4): the detectable effect of a gene: also EXPRESSIVITY 2 a: a mode, means, or use of significant representation or symbolism: esp: felicitous or vivid indication or depiction of mood or sentiment <read the poem with ~> b (1): the quality or fact of being expressive (2): facial aspect or vocal intonation as indicative of feeling 3: an act or product of pressing out –expressional.  [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright 1983, ISBN 0-87779-508-8, page 439]

The natural right of the ownership of “property” includes the right of “enjoyment” of it. Look at the definition of “property” and see for yourself:

“Property.  That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one.  In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights [including First Amendment rights] which are guaranteed and protected by the government.  Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536.  The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest.  More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it [including causing it to communicate or express your whereabouts].  That dominion or indefinite right [unlimited, including the right to NOT communicate with your possessions] of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing.  The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depend on another man’s courtesy….”

“Property embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership, or whether beneficial, or a private ownership….”

How can the owner of property “enjoy” having property that snitches on him or her?  The only thing that kind of ownership implies is anxiety and fear of government persecution.  This is clearly tyranny and must be stopped, folks!  It impinges on our sovereignty and makes us live a life of fear and oppression.  The exercise of one right, that is the right of property, cannot and should not imply the oppression or denigration of any other right, and especially if that oppression of other rights, such as First Amendment rights, was not done deliberately and willfully by the owner of the property.  In the above case, the exercise of property rights by the owner became a means to eliminate other rights of the owner, in this case First Amendment rights, and this case makes the whole Bill of Rights inconsistent with itself and eliminates the possibility that all of our rights can peacefully coexist together without impingement from the government.  In the words of the Supreme Court, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to “keep the government off our backs.”  How does the above ruling further that end?

“The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our Heritage.  The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people.  The Bill of Rights was added to keep the precincts of belief and expression, of the press, of political and social activities free from surveillance.  The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from Assemblies of People.  The aim was to allow men to be free and independent to assert their rights against government.  There can be no influence more paralyzing of that objective than Army [government] surveillance. When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist's shoulder in the library, or walks invisibly by his side in a picket line, or infiltrates his club [or forces him to submit an income tax return and then scrutinizes it for personal information or illegal activity], the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is [408 U.S. 1, 29]   cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian [Communist!] image, depicted in Appendix III to this opinion.”  [Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1; 92 S.Ct. 2318 (1972)]

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship