….tracked, via satellite, without their knowledge.All in the name of national security.
Every crime is statutorily defined by a list of elements. If a prosecutor persuades a jury (or a judge), beyond a reasonable doubt, that each of the elements of a crime has been met, the accused must be found guilty. If the elements have not been met or if reasonable doubts remain, the accused must be found not guilty. The elements of a crime typically include (1) a physical act (or omission), (2) the intent to commit the act, and (3) causation, i.e., the act and the intent causing or resulting in a violation of the law.
On April 22, 2009, a family in Baker County [FL], who had been turning to law-enforcement many times in the past year for help, after waiting at the county jail ,for over twenty minute, to report that their daughter, and small grandchildren, and a third person's life had been placed in harms way, when the vehicle they were in was deliberately ran off the highway, by person[s] who had been stalking, and harassing one of the passengers' brother for over a year. [[In March 2009, the brother had been attacked by two brothers and suffered great physical harm .]]
Because of lack of "equal protection under the law" those with the Baker County Sheriff's office 'created' a situation between two families that esscalated to a verbal confrontation , wherein those sworn to uphold the law portrayed themselves as the victims of the situation they themselves had created.
Baker County is located in the North Eastern part of Florida and has a population of around 23,000. This is a small county as compared to some of the others in Florida. The only bail bondsman serving Baker county licensed to put the GPS tracking device on the four men involved in this case is located in Glen St.Mary Florida. The bond hearing took less than 24 hrs, getting out, after the bond was set took five days, because the bail bondsman had to 'order' the tracking devices UPS.
Let me make this clear! My brother-in-law [who has no record, except for a complaint that was never signed years ago] and my nephew [who only has one thing on his record that occoured about a decade ago] set in jail six days. Five of those days because the only bail bondsman licensed [in Baker county area]to put the tracking devices on them had to order the devices.
What ever happened to "innocent before proven guilty"?
Out of love and concern, my brother-in-law, after going to the Baker County Sheriff's office for help, and being told that all the officers were busy elsewhere, felt he had to do something to protect the lives of his child, and small grandchildren.
Remember, their accusers, are those police officers who should have answered the citizens pleas for help. But who, instead, created the injustice ,now, against not only my family members but also those alleged to have run my niece ,her children, and another passenger off the highway.
The injustice? When the county judge, at the bond hearing, ordered the use of GPS tracking device, he not only invaded the everyday privacy of citizens to feel secure in their persons and homes but invaded the privacy rights of any one who is around them on a daily bases.
In his book, 1984, we were warned by George Orwell to watch out for “Big Brother.” One of the first references to a right of privacy appeared just a little more than one hundred years ago in Thomas M. Cooley’s treatise on the law of torts, wherein Cooley coined the phrase “the right to be let alone.”43 Subsequently, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis proposed a right of privacy in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article, written as a result of numerous attacks upon Warren’s family in the press.44 The article traced the roots of the right of privacy back to the common law of England.
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering84 set forth the standard to be used in applying section 23. In Winfield, the court stated that the right to privacy under section 23 is “fundamental” and, once implicated, must be evaluated using a compelling state interest standard.85 The importance of this case cannot be overstated. It clarifies that once an individual has established that government has intruded into a private aspect of the individual’s life, government must show that it has a compelling interest to justify the intrusion, and that it has employed the least intrusive means possible to accomplish its objective.
There's nothing to justify tracking American citizens, or anyone else in the world, as part of an experiment.
I would hope, sir, that the leaders of my country[or any country] would be above doing such.