Federal War On White Speech In Ferguson Private Email Investigation
The ongoing war on white Christians by homosexuals is not the only assault on freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Apparently private communications unrelated to public employment are subject to investigation and punishment. But we’re not talking about communists, Islamists, or other seditious or treasonous speech.
In both Ferguson, MO, and San Francisco, CA, public employees’ private communications are being searched without any legal basis and threats of legal action including discipline and termination are being invoked.
First, Ferguson. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division (CRD) conducted a parallel investigation of the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) while on their jihad against Darren Wilson, which flopped spectacularly.
Consequently, the CRD fell back upon a “pattern and practices” investigation of the FPD, and found nothing other than some statistics that showed the FPD stopped, searched, and arrested blacks at a rate commensurate with black crime in Ferguson, and elsewhere. The CRD also published some lurid tales from blacks claiming outrageous criminal abuse by specific officers, but took no action against those specific officers, which is telling; CRD makes wild accusations of specific criminal acts by individual police officer making false arrests, illegal searches, and illegal use-of-force, and does nothing.
This really tells us that the alleged victims were as unreliable as the perjurers who gave statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). For the uninitiated, that means that CRD had nothing and was deliberately using perjured testimony in the “pattern and practice” investigation, similar testimony that it rejected in the case against Wilson.
What it did find was that some police officers and other Ferguson municipal employees used their municipal email accounts to email personal communications.
Now, most public employers tell their employees that they may not use government resources for personal use. However, many explicitly allow it for de minimus use, such as personal phone calls and emailing and even those prohibiting such de minimus use never enforce that policy, rendering it null and void, not legally enforceable.
Furthermore, few public employers make any effort to take any action to monitor de minimus use for content. Basically it’s don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t care. Of course, unless the CRD rolls into town and decides to make an issue of the personal opinions legally expressed and protected by the Constitution. There is no hate speech exemption to the First Amendment.
While the emails were mildly racist jokes that one municipal employee sent to police officers, Ferguson had a de facto if not de jure, policy of allowing private use of email. While generally, there is no privacy right in your work email, unless there is a policy of inspection and review of said emails, persons using work email can develop privacy rights in their work email, and work space as well. Quite often U.S. Attorney’s Offices require a search warrant for the assigned office space to a Federal employee and demand evidence that Federal email is monitored and inspected before allowing Federal employee email to be used in a criminal prosecution, or just do not use said email for criminal prosecution to avoid claims of what is called in law Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP).
Furthermore, since there was no evidence that any person was mistreated by the named emailers on the basis of race, as the emails are clearly contemptuous of blacks and Barack Hussein Obama, as well as Michelle Obama. However, no person in Ferguson, much less the Obamas can claim any harm from these email actors. [Ferguson Releases Racist Emails That Sent Employees Packing, by Jennifer Mann, St. Louis Post Dispatch, April 4, 2015]
That week, Ferguson police Capt. Rick Henke and Sgt. William Mudd resigned and Court Clerk Mary Ann Twitty was fired over the emails. They did not receive severance packages.
Until now, it was not known who sent which emails and whether there were recipients beyond those three individuals.
And it appears that of the three, there was only one who sent the majority of the emails:
Based on what the city released Friday, it appears most of the emails were sent from Twitty to the officers. Mudd did send one email to Twitty that made cracks about welfare recipients being unemployed, unable to speak English, lazy and having no “clue who their daddies are.”
So, for two FPD officers, one email for Mudd was enough to force him to resign, and apparently no emails were sent by Henke, and despite there being no connection between the emails and their performance on the job.
Nor was there any evidence that the emails were sent by Twitty were connected to any work performance issues. She sent a private message which no person complained about. If she had said the jokes to a member of the public while on official business, one might have an issue, but that did not occur.
So, for millions of dollars spent on this investigation, only seven private emails were discovered that in the end did not show any actual failure or misconduct on the job. But it is not within the authority of the CRD to investigate the private opinions of Americans.
And these are the same people who tell us that communists and Islamists have the right to hold government jobs. Clearly the CRD opinion of freedom of speech is not content neutral. It has identified opinions, in fact just jokes, that are not approved, and sought to deprive persons of life, liberty, and property, and did so successfully.
Across the country, the same situation was occurring in San Francisco. The DOJ was conducting a criminal investigation into police corruption in the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and managed to convict two officers of several accused of robbing drug dealers.
However, as part of the investigation, the FBI released to the SFPD personal texts unrelated to the investigation from the accused officers to other officers unrelated to the investigation. [San Francisco Police Officers to Be Dismissed Over Racist Texts, by Timothy Williams, NYT April 3, 2015]
San Francisco’s police chief said Friday that he had moved to dismiss seven officers who sent or received text messages that spoke of lynching African-Americans and burning crosses.
Greg Suhr, the police chief, said Friday that the texts, sent by the officers in 2011 and 2012, “are of such despicable thinking that those responsible clearly fall below the minimum standards required to be a police officer.”
The messages — which included one that said, simply, “White Power,” as well as others with denigrating comments about homosexuals, Mexicans and Filipinos — were sent or received by as many as 14 officers in the department, the police said.
Officials have acknowledged that the texts have shaken confidence in the Police Department, which is responsible for public safety in a city that has long prided itself on inclusiveness and open-mindedness, has a large gay and lesbian population, and is among the most racially diverse cities in the country.
So, 2-3 year old texts unrelated to work are to be used as justification to fire white officers. There is no evidence that they acted unlawfully either on the job or off. More disturbingly is how the FBI came across the texts. The FBI could have obtained the texts as part of the ongoing investigation with a Grand Jury subpoena or through a Title III intercept. In either case, the FBI would have been prohibited from releasing the information to the SFPD as Grand Jury information cannot be released except during trial, and this information was not released during the above trial of the two officers.
(A) Disclosure of a grand-jury matter—other than the grand jury’s deliberations or any grand juror’s vote—may be made to:
(i) an attorney for the government for use in performing that attorney’s duty;
(ii) any government personnel—including those of a state, state subdivision, Indian tribe, or foreign government—that an attorney for the government considers necessary to assist in performing that attorney’s duty to enforce federal criminal law
The FBI is also prohibited from monitoring or retaining any information during a Title III intercept that is not directly related to the criminal acts identified in the affidavit in support of that Title III intercept. Criminals know this, so always start out their voice communications with innocuous conversations, if they are smart, so the intercepting agency has to stop the intercept of that call. The same with texts except that unless there is information in the text itself about the crime, in this case stealing from drug dealers, the unrelated texts must be deleted from the intercepting device.
In either event, the FBI acted illegally by providing the subject texts to the SFPD. Remember, opinions on race, whether it’s that the black wife of a house guest is a thief, or whatever, is irrelevant to a criminal investigation, is illegal to collect or hold, and of no concern to the FBI. There is no racism exception to the First Amendment.
In the end, any illegal or unconstitutional act will be permitted to wage war on whites, whether they be police officers, clerks, or frat boys. And of course, no one is monitoring blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or homosexuals for hate speech or racism. Only whites are the target, just as homosexual activists and cultural Marxists are ignoring Muslim bakers who refuse to make gay wedding cakes. Only straight whites are acceptable targets for illegal investigation, defenestration, and dekulakization.