Monthly Archives: October 2015

Bitcoin – RationalWiki

Posted: October 22, 2015 at 8:43 am

the best part about bitcoins is that you get to watch libertarians slowly discover why financial regulations exist to begin with

Bitcoin (code: BTC, XBT[2]) is an Internet-based digital currency and payment network; it uses strong cryptography to prevent users from duplicating money. Bitcoin's independence from the control of governments, corporations, or other centralized entities tends to appeal to libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and technophiles.[3] At the same time, it also does not enjoy the security and protection which those large bodies can ostensibly provide, making it a volatile and often insecure asset.

Bitcoin was first proposed by a person known only by the apparent pseudonym of "Satoshi Nakamoto" in late 2008, at the height of the banking crisis.[4] The identity of him/her/them has been a continuing source of intrigue.[5]

The currency is designed to employ lots of computers to process and record transactions. The solution to this is "mining," in which Bitcoin users run software to do all the necessary work.[6] Every time someone successfully proves they performed this work, they receive bitcoins in return. This provides an incentive to keep the currency running, but also attracts a lot of prospectors and speculators looking for easy money, and scammers who consider them suitably exploitable suckers.[7]

The currency's only practical use case is purchasing illicit goods (e.g., drugs) and services (e.g., murder-for-hire scams)[8][9] and extortion (e.g., "ransomware").[10] It is becoming the preferred currency for internal use by online criminals.[11][12] There has so far been no other use case for which it is superior to existing channels.

In 2014, the cryptocurrency began a sharp decline after a principal exchange, Mt. Gox, shut down following three months of blatant market manipulation.[13][14] It was later revealed that an undiscovered "leak" in the company's bitcoin wallet had rendered them insolvent in 2012, and virtually penniless by 2014.[15] Essentially, Bitcoin's astronomical rise was the direct result of meaningless trades with fake money.[16]

It's like a house on fire with freshly baked cookies inside.

The notable bit about Bitcoin is that it is intended to be entirely decentralised. The blockchain, the cryptographically-authenticated public ledger of every Bitcoin transaction ever, is reconciled by agreement of over 50% of all miners an attempt at a practical solution to the Byzantine Generals' Problem[wp] in computer science.[18]

There is no central bank backing Bitcoin; previous virtual currencies, such as E-Gold, Flooz, Beenz, Lindens, or WoW gold have always had an organisation behind them. This lack of a monetary authority means that, were governments to try to do something about it, they would not have a central point of attack.[19] Bitcoin therefore presents a rare sandbox/universe-in-a-jar scenario for observing market interactions in a free banking[wp] system, as Austrian schoolers have always wanted this time in the context of post-industrial economies.

You can buy actual stuff with bitcoins! Mostly internet services, geek toys, phone sex,[20] illegal drugs[21] and, of course, pre-used Bitcoin mining hardware.[22] And actually useful things like beer and pizza.[23][24] To allow payment with a high-volatility currency like Bitcoin, it is common for merchants to price their goods in the local standard currency, but receive payment via Bitcoin converted at current market rates.[25]

Bitcoin has no intrinsic value (i.e., has no use-value), similar to the US dollar,[26] and could be a general currency if 300 million people similarly behaved as though it was one, i.e., would do work in exchange for it.[27] Its biggest problem as an exchange medium is that it is not widely accepted, and that trading is thus very thin indeed.

There is also the matter of built-in deflation: there is a strictly limited possible number of bitcoins, and the processing power to mine new ones goes up as more miners join.[28] Also, if your wallet file is deleted, your bitcoins are gone for good.

"Babbage" at The Economist took it seriously and found it quite interesting,[29] but has muted his praise over time.[30] Other economists have criticized the idea (to the point of calling it a scam), citing inherent design problems.[31][32][33][34][35]Paul Krugman initially refrained from poking fun at the concept, but considered it a reimplementation of the gold standard, with the economic problems that implies;[36] he's since judged it as effectively just another right-wing affinity fraud, in which big libertarians prey upon smaller ones.[37] Warren Buffett has called it a "mirage."[38] About 25% of the European Central Bank's report on "Virtual Currency Schemes" is about Bitcoin,[39] and both the European Banking Authority and US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have warned about major consumer protection issues.[40][41]

The trouble with re-implementing the gold standard in the 21st century is that financial attacks, just like cryptographic attacks, don't get less effective with time if you apply attacks evolved in a hundred years of Red Queen's race against regulation, then remove the regulation, the subeconomy in question is utterly defenseless. As one quant on Hacker News outlined:[42]

And we can now see this in practice: the $1200/BTC peak in late 2013 was caused by the market manipulation known as "painting the tape";[43] Mt. Gox in particular appears to have suffered chronic tape-painting.[44] Note that the "free market" completely failed to deal with fraud in this environment: all other exchanges were tracking Mt. Gox's blatantly skewed prices.

Bitcoin relies on distributed consensus: the blockchain is what a majority of mining capacity says it is. Since mining is the "core of the Bitcoin protocol," there is the possibility of what is termed a "51% attack," where miners could consolidate into a cartel to exceed 50% of the mining power (yes, a de facto monopoly) and so could unilaterally ratify the entire blockchain to do things like double-spending confirmed transactions and preventing any new transactions or just ones they don't like from happening while they're in control (though they cannot take other people's coins).[45][46] But this was considered unlikely because Bitcoin enthusiasts were highly distributed individualists.

This worked quite well early on. However, proof-of-work algorithms benefit from economies of scale,[wp] which leads to centralization directly. So as mining became more difficult and demanded more specialized resources, single mining "pools" became a substantial fraction of Bitcoin's network hashrate. In June 2014, mining pool GHash reached 51%, leading to calls to use decentralized pooling options.[47] In 2015, nine mining pools control 75% of the hashpower.[48]

Economically, it would be foolish for, e.g., GHash to just kick over the board because they could cornering the market in an insubstantial good is only worth it while people trust the value of the insubstantial good but the actual problem is that the group with 51% of all mining capacity will be able to "undermine the rules of the currency itself."[49] GHash quickly backed down to under 50% and claims it wants to fix the deeper problem,[50] but the economic incentives of "selfish mining" remain.

Cornell researchers have identified many more subtle attacks one can make even with less than 50%,[51] and it is worth noting that GHash had previously conducted a "49% attack" (a "Finney attack"[52]) wherein a large miner double-spends coins, just not with certainty against a gambling site.[53] They blamed this on a rogue employee, but this in itself shows that individuals can be motivated to trash a whole system for temporary personal gain. Again, real financial systems have government regulation for this specific threat.

So who's doing the maths? The answer is the most powerful distributed computing project in the world.[54] While other distributed computing systems are investigating protein folding or sifting through radiotelescope data for signs of intelligent communication from the stars, bitcoins are being generated by people running hashing algorithms to process transactions on a poorly-traded virtual currency.

But it's long past the point where you can do any decent amount of processing on a standard desktop system (or, as some less-than-ethical Bitcoiners have, sneaking processing code into Javascript on web pages, or simply deploying a Trojan on someone's Windows box). Bitcoin miners quickly moved to the GPUs of video cards, then field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) specifically programmed for the algorithm, and now mining is done on ASICs based on said FPGAs. There are even companies selling Bitcoin mining rigs; their frequently-sketchy workmanship wouldn't endear them to IT pros or the FTC, but they're still better than some of the firetrap rigs that Bitcoiners have put together for themselves.[55] The many bizarre and frankly stupid cooling schemes are usually good for a laugh as well, including one Darwin Award applicant who poured a bucket of liquid nitrogen on the floor next to his rig to cool it.[56]

The irony of all this is that once hardware and power costs are factored in, it's hard to make a profit from Bitcoin mining. Many more-savvy Bitcoiners filch their power from someone else and don't factor in the equipment cost at all.

Bitcoin is also an environmental disaster, using on the order of 24 gigawatt-hours a day, literally wasted on calculating hashes. For comparison, the entire nation of Ireland runs about 72 GWh a day average.[57][58] The network cost per transaction (of any size) is around $20 of electricity.[59] (Thus, Bitcoin runs on libertarians externalising their costs to others.[60]) If only they'd based it on protein folding.[61]

The cryptography is robust, so many highly vocal internet libertarians think this is all that is needed, because they don't understand people, know very little about economics, and apparently nothing of how reliable financial computing infrastructures are built real banks tend to use mainframes in highly redundant configurations, not AWS virtual servers without backups and generally show terrifying navet and incompetence. This then bites them in the arse when they discover that running a Magic: The Gathering Online card exchange site is insufficient experience to securely run a currency exchange,[62] or discover they have no backups.[63] Many were sufficiently nave as to fall for, not just a Ponzi scheme, but a Ponzi scheme that had already been tried in EVE Online's in-game currency.[64] There are also people who understand this level of computer science, but still keep their wallet.dat file in plain text on a Windows box, ready for reaping by malware or a DDoS.[65][66][67] This is the sort of thing that gets bitcoins called "Dunning-Krugerrands."[68]

The decentralised nature attracts libertarian extremists (go read any Bitcoin forum for more wacko libertarianism than you ever thought possible). There are Bitcoin advocates who are not annoying Randroid fools, but the ones who are tend to drown out all the others. It is unsurprising, then, that some business writers have accused them of cultish behaviour;[49][69] some proponents are simply aghast that anyone might not consider it valuable for services rendered.[70]

One of the otherwise-saner advocates is Rick Falkvinge, founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, who has put all his savings into bitcoins.[71] Though, he also details its problems.[72] He is a big fan of Bitcoin not as a general currency, but as a pure medium of exchange, substituting for PayPal or credit cards and changing back into a more popular currency at each end as the Visa/Mastercard/PayPal oligopoly's willingness to block recipients they, the American government or fundamentalists don't like, starts to become a practical problem.

Andrew Napolitano from Fox Business Network supports Bitcoin as well. In a move that may make many of his fans cry, Ron Paul does not.[73]

There are multiple Bitcoin "banks," but most of this seems to revolve around doing things with bitcoins,[74] leading to accusations of cargo cult economics. And scams. There are lots of scammers in the Bitcoin community, who are punished by the harshest method imaginable: getting a "scammer" tag on the BitcoinTalk.org forum.

There is a Bitcoin exchange hack or collapse approximately every month. Leaving any money exposed on a Bitcoin exchange is, statistically, a terrible idea.

One Bitcoin exchange, Bitcoin-Central (now called Paymium), has achieved bank status in France.[75] Their aim is to supply an alternative to PayPal, and their central bank backing on balances only applies to accounts in euros rather than in bitcoins. On the other hand, other players in the Bitcoin field have had to suspend operations because US banks view companies involved with Bitcoin as too high risk to do business with,[76] or have had to suspend US dollar withdrawals for undisclosed reasons.[77]

Despite Western-oriented services being portrayed as synonymous with the Bitcoin "brand" Mt. Gox was still responsible for 90% of all Bitcoin transactions by the end of 2012,[78] so this isn't entirely unwarranted Chinese exchanges actually overtook it in output before its collapse.[79] This presents another serious problem for the cryptocurrency moving forward: attempts by the US government to impose regulations post-Gox pale in comparison to recent pressure by Beijing to crack down on the Chinese market.[80] One incentive is off-the-books currency exchange: buy hardware and electricity in yuan, make it into bitcoins and sell the bitcoins for dollars.

In order to prop up the initial system, Bitcoin mining was designed to bribe early users with exponentially better rewards than latecomers could get for the same effort. To join the network at all, new users must give ever-increasing amounts of wealth to previous bitcoiners who are sitting around doing nothing. This effectively makes Bitcoin a pump-and-dump scheme wherein these early adopters, who have more bitcoins than anyone else ever will, hype it up so they can offload their bitcoins onto fools who think they'll strike it rich as speculators. This means the system runs on opportunism, especially among people who like the idea of decentralized techno-money. This setup is defended as an acceptable trade-off and/or a fair reward for propping up the system.[82]

In the meantime, speculators and opportunists have remained Bitcoin's main users: according to one 2012 study, only 22% of existing bitcoins were in circulation at all, there were a total of 75 active users/businesses with any kind of volume, one (unidentified) user owned a quarter of all bitcoins in existence, and one large owner was trying to hide their wealth accumulation by moving it around in thousands of smaller transactions.[83] Meanwhile, businesses, from family stores to multimillion-dollar corporations, have jumped onto Bitcoin to seem forward-looking and get a cut of the Bitcoin action.[84] But go on, dive in and get rich.

The real and overriding issue with Bitcoin is that it does practically nothing that isn't already possible, while also introducing flaws of its own:

Whenever some of these objections are raised, the common Bitcoiner reply is to think about things from the merchant's point of view that they pay less in fees (which isn't necessarily true), or that they might get chargebacks (which can be defended against, and generally don't happen to merchants who don't actually scam people or rip them off). This ignores that most people don't care, and the few that do see enough benefit and convenience from being able to get fraudulently taken money returned to them that it doesn't actually bother them.

In practice, the only thing Bitcoin does better than conventional currencies and existing payment systems is to let libertarians buy illicit goods without having to go to the bad part of town and talk to minorities.

A number of copycat cryptocurrencies ("altcoins") exist as a consequence of the Bitcoin experiment, only a few of which, such as Litecoin and Dogecoin, have achieved any notability. A few of these have significant distinctions from Bitcoin, such as Namecoin which is part of a decentralized ".bit" DNS project[94] and Freicoin which incorporates demurrage to discourage speculative hoarding, but most of them are simple forks of the Bitcoin code. Since the media attention on Bitcoin in early 2013[95] a glut of such "coins" has flooded the market, with increasingly silly names like BBQcoin, Memecoin, Junkcoin, Sexcoin, and Shitcoin.[96] And don't forget Coinye West.[97]

Dogecoin[98] gained some popularity on cuteness value and use for tipping on Reddit.[99] Unlike most altcoins, Dogecoin is slightly inflationary rather than deflationary.[100] Despite having similar get-rich hopes, Dogecoin fans are also notably less dickish than Bitcoin fans, though that's not hard to achieve.

Many Bitcoin advocates really don't like altcoins:[101] most of the value proposition of Bitcoin is the strictly limited quantity available, and they perceive altcoins as undermining their hodling, instead suggesting the way to resolve Bitcoin's scaling problems without altcoins is with hypothetical add-ons such as sidechains.[102] (Though sidechain developers themselves are not so optimistic.[103]) They dismiss altcoins as scams (though they don't regard the substantially-premined Bitcoin as one). However, there is no way for them to stop altcoins from being created.

To be fair, quite a lot of altcoins since the 2013 boom were blatant scams: make a coin, premine it, promise far-fetched features in BitcoinTalk's altcoin forum,[104] get it onto an exchange, sell it for Bitcoins. USBCoin, for example, netted 150 BTC this way.[105] DafuqCoin compromised exchanges because nobody checked the code before running it.[106][107] And then there's Ponzicoin, which, despite having Ponzi in the name, lasted a few months before being exposed, shockingly, as a Ponzi scheme. BitcoinTalk dealt with these coins firmly: it limited advertisement signature image dimensions.

In a gold rush, the money's in selling shovels. Cash up front, please.

(Unless you're Butterfly Labs, in which case the shovel-sellers are crooks too).

See the article here:
Bitcoin - RationalWiki

Posted in Bitcoin | Comments Off on Bitcoin – RationalWiki

Longevity and Human Evolution | Emily Deans M.D. vs Ron …

Posted: at 8:41 am

Watch all filmed sessions from Paleo f(x) here: http://www.paleofx.com/on-demand

Join our newsletter - http://eepurl.com/YrVLf Visit us - http://www.paleofx.com Like on Facebook - http://www.fb.com/PaleoFX Follow on Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/PaleoFX

About the speaker : Dr. Emily Deans :

Emily Deans, M.D., is a board certified adult psychiatrist practicing in Massachusetts. She graduated from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in 2000 and from the Harvard Longwood Psychiatry Residency in 2004, and was a Chief Resident at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. She is currently a Clinical Instructor in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

The overarching theory she explores is that our bodies and brains do best in conditions for which they are evolved. She digs up scientific information and presents it in that context. She feels that by studying evolutionary medicine, we come closer to the answers for optimal conditions for health and vitality. The dietary basics of evolutionary medicine are simple: don't eat very much fructose, omega-6 rich industrial vegetable oils, grains (such as wheat, rye, barley, spelt, quinoa, oats, corn, etc.), or processed "fake" food in general. Eat as much local, farmstand, grassfed, pastured, wild-caught as you care for. That's vegetables, meat, fish, nuts, eggs, and fruits. In her opinion, if you have no serious medical conditions, it's perfectly healthy to have high-fat dairy, safe starches such as white rice or potatoes, red wine, and dark chocolate in moderation. Also, get plenty of sleep and play.

Visit Emily at : http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspo...

About the speaker : Dr. Ron Rosedale :

Dr. Ron Rosedale is an Internationally known expert in nutritional and metabolic medicine whose work with diabetics is truly groundbreaking. Very few physicians have had such consistent success in helping diabetics to eliminate or reduce their need for insulin and to reduce heart disease-both without drugs or surgery.

Dr. Rosedale was founder of the Rosedale Center, co-founder of the Colorado Center for Metabolic Medicine (Boulder, CO USA) and founder of the Carolina Center of Metabolic Medicine (Asheville, NC). Through these centers, he has helped thousands suffering from so-called incurable diseases to regain their health. One of Dr. Rosedale's life goals is to wipe out type II diabetes in this country as a model for the world. He also has written a book, "The Rosedale Diet", covering his proven treatment methods for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, osteoporosis and other chronic diseases of aging.

Visit Dr. Rosedale at : http://www.drrosedale.com

Read the original here:
Longevity and Human Evolution | Emily Deans M.D. vs Ron ...

Posted in Human Longevity | Comments Off on Longevity and Human Evolution | Emily Deans M.D. vs Ron …

Fourth Amendment.com

Posted: at 7:45 am

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links [Crtl+F to search]

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S. Ct. 683, 4 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1960) Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1972) Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1925) Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964) Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 114 S. Ct. 807, 127 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1994) Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990) Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1969) Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 96 S. Ct. 2737, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1976) Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 131 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1995) Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009) Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S. Ct. 1149, 94 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1987) Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S. Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009) Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979) Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011) Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 149 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2001) Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013) Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979) Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S. Ct. 1873, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040 (1967) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984) Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971) Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 122 S. Ct. 2559, 153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002) Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 120 S. Ct. 1462, 146 L. Ed. 2d 365 (2000) Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886) Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 168 L. Ed.2d 132 (2007) Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed.2d 650 (2006) Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949) Brower v. Inyo County, 489 U.S. 593, 109 S. Ct. 1378, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628 (1989). Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1975) Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S. Ct. 1565, 36 L. Ed. 2d 208 (1973) Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1968) California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S. Ct. 1625, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1988) California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991) Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 37 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1973) Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Company, 416 U.S. 663, 94 S. Ct. 2080, 40 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1974) California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S. Ct. 2066, 85 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1985) California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S. Ct. 1809, 90 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1986) Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967) Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (2011) Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1974) Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1925) Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970) Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S. Ct. 1295, 137 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1997) Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 81 S. Ct. 776, 5 L. Ed. 2d 828 (1961) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 232 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969) City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 383 (2000) City of Los Angeles v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 127 S. Ct. 1989, 167 L. Ed. 2d 974 (2007) City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L. Ed. 2d 216 (2010) Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 185 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2013) Colonnade Catering Corporation v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S. Ct. 774, 25 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1970) Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1987) Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971). Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S. Ct. 611, 34 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1973) County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S. Ct. 1661, 114 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1991) Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S. Ct. 2000, 36 L. Ed. 2d 900 (1973) Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 99 S. Ct. 1682, 60 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1979) Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S. Ct. 1394, 22 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1969) Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2011) Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S.648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979) Donovan v. Dewey, 398 U.S. 427, 101 S. Ct. 2534, 69 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1981) Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 106 S. Ct. 1819, 90 L. Ed. 2d 226 (1986) Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1979) Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 88 S. Ct. 1472, 20 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1968) Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 4 L. Ed.2d 1669 (1960) Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howells St. Tr. 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B. 1765) Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 121 S. Ct. 1281, 149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001) Fernandez v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (2014) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 182 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012) Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1991) Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013) Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013) Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2000) Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1991) Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 109 S. Ct. 693, 102 L. Ed. 2d 835 (1989) Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990) Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 119 S. Ct. 1555, 143 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1999) Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978) Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740, 89 S. Ct. 1420, 22 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1969) Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S. Ct. 1515, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006) Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1975) G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 97 S. Ct. 619, 50 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1977) Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S. Ct. 1245, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1503 (1958) Go-Bart Importing v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 51 S. Ct. 153, 75 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1931) Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S. Ct. 3164, 97 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1987) Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (2004) Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906) Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S. Ct. 445, 68 L. Ed. 2d 898 (1924) Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004) Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 91 S. Ct. 1106, 28 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1971) Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S. Ct. 408, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1966) Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990) Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006) Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984) Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 103 S. Ct. 3319, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (1983) Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005) Illinois v. Gates, 459 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983) Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 107 S. Ct. 1160, 94 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1987) Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S. Ct. 2605, 77 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1983) Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S. Ct. 885, 157 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2004) Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 121 S. Ct. 946, 148 L. Ed. 2d 838 (2001) Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 111 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1990) Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S. Ct. 673, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2000) INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 104 S. Ct. 1758, 80 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1984) INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 104 S. Ct. 3479, 82 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1984) James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307, 110 S. Ct. 648, 107 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1990) Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 100 S. Ct. 2124, 65 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1980) Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1948) Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960) Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967) Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 123 S. Ct. 1843, 155 L. Ed. 2d 814 (2003) Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011) Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986) Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 119 S. Ct. 484, 142 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1998) Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346, 77 S. Ct. 828, 1 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1957) Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001) Leach v. Money [Three King's Messengers], 19 Howell's St. Tr. 1001, 97 Eng. Rep. 1074 (K.B. 1765) Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S. Ct. 424, 17 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1966) Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S. Ct. 1381, 10 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1963) Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 83 S. Ct. 917, 9 L. Ed. 2d 922 (1963) Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 89 L. Ed. 2d 871 (1986) Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S. Ct. 2120, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1154 (1968) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 81 S. Ct. 1708, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1127 (1961) Marshall v. Barlows, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 98 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1978) Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1990) Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 107 S. Ct. 1013, 94 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1987) Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 186 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013) Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 105 S. Ct. 2778, 86 L. Ed. 2d 370 (1985) Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795, 157 L. Ed. 2d 769 (2003) Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S. Ct. 882, 137 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1997) Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 104 S. Ct. 3424, 82 L. Ed. 2d 737 (1984) Massacusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 104 S. Ct. 2085, 80 L. Ed.2d 721 (1984) McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S. Ct. 191, 93 L. Ed. 2d 153 (1948) Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 104 S. Ct. 641, 78 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1984) Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 99 S. Ct. 2627, 61 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1979) Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S. Ct. 546, 175 L. Ed. 2d 410 (2009) Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983) Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981) Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S. Ct. 2357, 41 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1974) Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S. Ct. 1942, 56 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1978) Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S. Ct. 2481, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1990) Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S. Ct. 1190, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1332 (1958) Miller v. United States, 425 U.S. 435, 96 S. Ct. 1619, 48 L. Ed. 2d 71 (1976) Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998) Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 124 L. Ed.2d 334 (1993) Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1990) Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978) Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013) Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 S. Ct. 1465, 161 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2005) Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 108 S. Ct. 2529, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1988) Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 2d 307 (1939) National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S. Ct. 1384, 103 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1989) New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985) New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981) New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 107 S. Ct. 2636, 96 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1987) New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 106 S. Ct. 960, 89 L. Ed. 2d 81 (1986) New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 106 S. Ct. 1610, 89 L. Ed. 2d 871 (1986) Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984) OConnor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987) Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 117 S. Ct. 417, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996) Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1984) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1928) On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S. Ct. 967, 96 L. Ed. 1270 (1952) One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S. Ct. 1246, 14 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1965) Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996) Paxton's Case (Boston Super.Ct. 1761) Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009) Pennsylvania v. Labron, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1984) Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S. Ct. 330, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1977) Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 118 S. Ct. 2014, 141 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1998) Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964) Raddatz v. United States, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980) Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978) Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 65 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1980) Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 100 S. Ct. 2752, 65 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1980) Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 137 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1997) Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 101 S. Ct. 2841, 69 L. Ed. 2d 744 (1981) Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 2d 183 (1952) Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S. Ct. 2633, 174 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2009) Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006) Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 126 S. Ct. 2669, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2006) Sacramento County v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1988) Saucier v. Katz, 531 U.S. 991, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001) Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966) Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973) Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007) Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S. Ct. 1717, 56 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1978) See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S. Ct. 1737, 18 L. Ed. 2d 943 (1967) Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S. Ct. 3380, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1984) Seymane's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K. B. 1603) Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 53 S. Ct. 138, 77 L. Ed. 260 (1932) Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 81 S. Ct. 679, 5 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1961) Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S. Ct. 967, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1247 (1968) Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 103 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1989) Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1979) Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1993) South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1976) Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969) Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 85 S. Ct. 506, 13 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1965) Stanton v. Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2013) Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S. Ct. 1642, 68 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1981) Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976) Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S. Ct. 889, 11 L. Ed. 2d 856 (1964) Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S. Ct. 1535, 75 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1983) Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127, 158 L. Ed. 2d 905 (2004) Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 99 S. Ct. 2425, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1979) United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S. Ct. 744, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002) United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 124 S. Ct. 521, 157 L. Ed.2d 343 (2003) United States v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 95 S.Ct. 915, 43 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975) United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S. Ct. 1593, 32 L. Ed. 2d 87 (1972) United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607, 95 S. Ct. 2574 (1975) United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 99 S. Ct. 1465, 59 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1979) United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S. Ct. 613, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974) United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S. Ct. 1054, 55 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1978) United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977) United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981) United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S. Ct. 1244, 63 L. Ed. 2d 537 (1980) United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1948) United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 764, 35 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1973) United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 122 S. Ct. 2105, 153 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2002) United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 107 S. Ct. 1134, 94 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1987) United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S. Ct. 1234, 39 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1974) United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 124 S. Ct. 1582, 158 L. Ed. 2d 311 (2004) United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 126 S. Ct. 1494, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006) United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 80 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1984) United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 114 S. Ct. 492, 126 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1994) United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 96 S. Ct. 3021, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1046 (1976) United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S. Ct. 93, 96 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1951) United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2012) United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 104 S. Ct. 3296, 82 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1984) United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2001) United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S. Ct. 1081, 75 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1983) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984) United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 93 S. Ct. 774, 35 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1973) United States v. Martinez-Fuarte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S. Ct. 3074, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116 (1976) United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S. Ct. 988, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1974) United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980) United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985) United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 113 S.Ct. 1936, 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (1993) United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983) United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 85 S. Ct. 248, 13 L. Ed.2d 112 (1964) United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 118 S. Ct. 992, 140 L. Ed. 2d 191 (1998) United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 97 S. Ct. 1972, 52 L. Ed. 2d 617 (1977) United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S. Ct. 467, 38 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1973) United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982) United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S. Ct. 2547, 65 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1980) United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1976) United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985) United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989) United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 92 S. Ct. 2125, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1972) United States v. Van Leeuwan, 397 U.S. 249, 90 S. Ct. 1029, 25 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1970) United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965) United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 110 S. Ct. 1056, 108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990) United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1971) Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S. Ct. 1969, 26 L. Ed. 2d 409 (1970) Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008) Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995) Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 1362, 127 S. Ct. 2090, 167 L. Ed. 2d 807 (2007) Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 100 S. Ct. 2395, 65 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1980) Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 102 S. Ct. 812, 70 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1982) Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 100 S. Ct. 2124, 65 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1980) Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914) Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1984) Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S. Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1971) Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996) Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's St. Tr. 1153, 98 Eng. Rep. 489 (K.B. 1763) Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 115 S. Ct. 1914, 131 L. Ed. 2d 976 (1995) Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 119 S. Ct. 1692, 143 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1999) Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984) Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963) Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999) Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 100 S. Ct. 338, 62 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1979) Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 56 L. Ed. 2d 525, 98 S. Ct. 1970 (1978)

Back to blog

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Fourth Amendment consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book Search and seizure law consulting http://www.johnwesleyhall.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit FDsys: Many district courts FDsys: Many federal courts FDsys: Other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Most recent SCOTUS cases: 2009 to date:

2013-14 Term: Riley v. California, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog) United States v. Wurie, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog) Plumhoff v. Rickard, granted Nov. 15, argued Mar. 4 (ScotusBlog) Stanton v. Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (Nov. 4, 2013) (per curiam) Navarette v. California, granted Oct.1, argued Jan. 21 (ScotusBlog) Fernandez v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (Feb. 25) (ScotusBlog)

2012-13 Term: Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) (ScotusBlog) Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (ScotusBlog)

2011-12 Term: Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) (other blog) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (ScotusBlog) United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (ScotusBlog) Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (ScotusBlog)

2010-11 Term: Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (ScotusBlog) Camreta v. Greene, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (ScotusBlog) Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (ScotusBlog) Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (ScotusBlog)

2009-10 Term: Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog) City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010) (ScotusBlog)

2008-09 Term: Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (ScotusBlog) Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (ScotusBlog)

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General's site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Curiae (Yale Law) Oyez Project (NWU) "On the Docket"Medill S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx Lexis.com $ Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ Findlaw.com Findlaw.com (4th Amd) Westlaw.com $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 http://www.fd.org FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." Me

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government." Shemaya, in the Thalmud

"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment. Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth." Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments 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. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up." Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men! Pep Le Pew

"There is never enough time, unless you are serving it." Malcolm Forbes

"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)

Read more here:
Fourth Amendment.com

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Fourth Amendment.com

Triggers of Eczema | Causes of Eczema | National Eczema …

Posted: October 21, 2015 at 1:42 pm

The exact causes of eczema are unknown. You might have inherited a tendency for eczema. You may have a family member who has eczema or who has hay fever (allergic rhinitis) or asthma. Many doctors think eczema causes are linked to allergic disease, such as hay fever or asthma. Doctors call this the atopic triad. Many children with eczema (up to 80%) will develop hay fever and/or asthma.

There are many triggers of eczema that can make it flare or get worse. Below are some of the common triggers. You should learn what triggers your eczema to flare, and then try to avoid it.

Irritants can make your symptoms worse. What irritates you may be different from what irritates someone else with the condition, but could include:

If your genes make you more likely to develop atopic eczema, the condition will develop after you are exposed to certain environmental factors, such as allergens.

Allergens are substances that can cause the body to react abnormally. This is known as an allergic reaction. Some of the most common allergens that can be causes of eczema include:

Some types of microbe can be triggers of eczema:

Atopic eczema can sometimes be caused by food allergens, especially before the age of one.Some studies of children and young people with atopic eczema found that one-third to nearly two-thirds also had a food allergy.Food allergies associated with eczema causes are typically:

Stress is known to be associated with eczema but it is not fully understood how it affects the condition. Some people with eczema have worse symptoms when they are stressed. For others their eczema symptoms cause them to feel stressed.

Read more about how stress and eczema are related

Hormones are chemicals produced by the body. They can cause a wide variety of effects. When the levels of certain hormones in the body increase or decrease some women can experience flare ups of their eczema.

Originally posted here:
Triggers of Eczema | Causes of Eczema | National Eczema ...

Posted in Eczema | Comments Off on Triggers of Eczema | Causes of Eczema | National Eczema …

CENTRAL TN NATIONAL SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION – eteamz

Posted: October 20, 2015 at 10:45 am

Wednesday, January 7

MIDDLE TN NATIONAL SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION YOUTH FASTPITCH

http://WWW.LEAGUELINEUP.COM/MTNSA

Thursday, February 10

NSA Youth Fastpitch Tournaments 2011-2012

NSA TOURNAMENTS 2011-2012

NSA Recreation StateTournament 3 Game wrapJuly 16-17 Portland/TN

8U Laverngne Lightning, WhiteHouse Frostbite, , Macon County All Stars,Lafayette Missfits,Southern KYThunder 6U Playing up,Portland All Stars10u White House All Stars pending, Lebanon Deviletes,Barren County Chaos, Macon County Blue Heat,Giles County All-Stars, 01KY Thunder AllStars,OO KY Thunder Allstars, 12u Clarksville Kaos pending, Heritage MustangsAll Stars, MT. Juliet Lady Bears, 99Kentucky ThunderAll-Stars, SK Force, Diamond Dolls Carthage, Southern Swing Maryville,TN, Macon County All-Stars14u Southern KY Thunder,Portland Heat, Hartsville All-Stars18u Portland Spikes, Ridge Runners, Outkasts

NSABeat The HeatAugust 20, 21thTriple Creek Park Gallatin, TN

8U Pleasant View Thunderstruck, WhiteHouseFrostBite, Macon County Misfits, Columbia Stars, Macon County Chaos, Kentucky Firestix,Team Kaos,10u Greenbriar Firecrackers, Kentucky Firestix, Lebanon Blue Devils, Team Thunder 02, Shelbyville Crushers 02,Team Easton speed 01 pending12u Team Worth 99TN Ballhawks,TN Firecrackers, 99 TN Diamonds14U Dickson County CubsBlack, Dickson County Blue, Portland Heat, Extreme Edge, WestmorelandLady Eagles, Hendersonville LegacySOS 97, Kentucky Stunners, pending Huntsville Sparks, Kentucky Sluggers16/18 Rampage 96 ,Outkasts, Dickson CountyCubs, Team Swerve, Ridge Runners 16u, Ridge Runners 18u, Team Worth 93,

NSA Pencil City Grand Slam September 17 Shelbyville, TNOne dayTournament

8 8U FrostBite, N Ala Rockets 03,Dream Catchers 03 ,Shelbyville Missfits,10u Middle TN Crusaders 02, Shelbyville Crushers 02, Outrage 02,Firecrackers, Shelbyville Quick Strike, 12u LebanonLittle Devils, Tennessee Heat,Firecrackers,Dirt Dobbers, Dream Catchers

NSAPumpkin Blast& CaptainU College Exposure October 8-9 Triple Creek ParkGallatin,TN Four pool and Single Elmination

8U FrostBite, Team Kaos, MC Chaos, 10u Outrage 02,Team Thunder 02,Team Worth 02FireBirds 02Firecrackers , 02 Storm,02 Crusaders Shelbyville Crushers,12U TN Worth 2000,TN Illusions , Southern Kentucky KnockOuts, Louisville Stunners, Southern Kentucky Sting,FireCrackers, Lebanon Lady Devils, Tennessee Rounders, 14u LouisvilleStunners,D.C. Cubs, Ball Bandits, 99 Ballhawks, Tennessee Comets 98, Kentucky Full Throttle Fastpitch, Legacy SOS, WhiteHouse Scorcherz 16u,, D.C. Cubs, Fury 97, Middle TN Black Ice, Tennessee Thunderbolt, Nashville Nighthawks, Murfreesboro Firebirds Red,Murfreesboro Firebirds Porter Team Swerve, Ridge Runners Xtreme, Middle TN Madness,

NSA Oktoberfeast Fall East/MT State ChampionshipOctober22-23 Cane Creek SportsComplex, Cookeville, TN Lebanon Devils, Firecrackers, Frostbite, Outkasts

NSA Halloween Classic Oct 29 White House Municipal Park, White House, TN

8U Frostbite, Dream Catchers, Southern Kentucky Thunder 04,Diamond Dirt Dogz, Dickson County Cubs 10U, Southern Kentucky Thunder 02, Storm 02, Worth 02,OutRage 02, firecrackers, Crusaders 02 , D.C Cubs, Hendersonville All-Stars, team ,Team Thunder 02,12U Warren County Knockouts, Firecrackers, Lebanon Lady Devils. Team Worth 99 , TN Mustangs , Dream Catchers, Smash Club 2000 14UOrange CrushScorcherz, Bandits, Xtreme Edge, Clarksville Kaos ,

One day Tournament 8U FrostBite

NSA 11thAnnual Triple Play State & World QualiferMay 12One Pool &DoubleelminationTriple Creek Park, Gallatin, TN

NSAMidEast Championship & Captain UJune2-3Triple Creek Park Gallatin, TN

Saturday, May 21

NSA Mid-East Championship & CaptainU 14- 16-18 2011 Finish

1.Tennessee Blast

2.East Robertson Wildthing

3.Middle TN Madness

14U

1.Nitro 96

2.Legacy 97

3.CopperHeads

Sunday, January 31

Captain U college softball recruiting

Captain U has teamed up with the NSA Mideast Championships

Have questions? Contact: info@captainU.comC:

Saturday, October 17

2010 NSA MIDEAST CHAMPIONSHIP FINISH

12U 1 DIRT DAWGS 14U 1 DREAM TEAM 16U 1LEBANON XTREME

2 TN ILLUSIONS 2 LADY DAWGS2 N ALABAMA EXPLOSION

3 3-D 3 LADY TITANS3 MUSIC CITY ICE

18/16 1HOLCOMB HURRICANES

2 TN MADNESS

3 DOWN STATE RIPPERS 94

Sunday, May 9

2010 NSA 9TH ANNUAL TRIPLE PLAY FINISH

14U 1ST WORTH 96 12U 1ST WORTH 97

2ND CRUISERS 2ND TN ELITE 98

3RD ENVY 3RD TEAM MUZUNO 97

Sunday, June 7

NSA MIDEAST CHAMPIONSHIP FINISH FIRST THRU THIRD

12U LADY WARRIORS, TN BALLHAWKS, NASHVILLE NIGHTHAWKS

14U TN BALLHAWKS, TN XPLOSION, INDIANA EARTHQUAKE GOLD

16/18 GOLD NASHVILLE NIGHTHAWKS 94, TN OUTLAWS, HOLCOMB HURRICANES

16/18 SILVER KY OUTLAWS, CLARKSVILLE MISSFITS, TN HORNETS

Wednesday, October 1

14U FIRST THRU THIRD STATE TOURNAMENT

Saturday, January 17

GO TO http://WWW.PLAYNSA.COM TO ENTER TOURNAMENTS

Click on TN tournaments and enter your sanction number. If you don't have a sanction number for TN please give me a call at 615-481-5688. If your an out of state team call your local director or state director to obtain a sanction number.

Monday, January 12

weather

Sunday, May 11

WHAT A GREAT TOURNAMENT HERE IS THE 2008 TRIPLE PLAY FINISH

7TH ANNUAL TRIPLE PLAY FINISH

12U A FIRST TN DIAMONDS,SECOND TN WHITE LIGHTNING,THIRD LIL LADY WARRIORS 95

12U B FIRST TN EXPLOSION WHITE 96,SECOND SMYRNA BULLDOGS,HENDERSONVILLE WILDFIRE

10UA TEAM WORTH RED 97, SECOND TN BALLHAWKS,THIRD GOODLETSVILLE STORM

8UA SOUTHERN KY THUNDER,SECOND CENTRAL KY LIGHTNING,THIRD MURFREESBORO LIL LADY WARRIORS

Saturday, January 19 NSA FASTPITCH

NSA HOT LINE 615-481-5688

Sunday, April 27

NSA THUNDERSTICK PLACING FIRST THRU THIRD

14U CINNCINATI STATIC,NIGHTHAWKS,KRYPTONITE,12U CINNCINATI,STATIC,SMYRNA BULLDOGS, CLARKSVILLE MADNESS 10U MIDDLE TN STORM,CLARKSVILLE PATRIOTS,MUSIC CITY STARS 8U SOUTHERN KY THUNDER,HOPKINS COUNTY HEAT,KENTUCKY SIDEWINDERS

Friday, May 18

WINNERS AND RUNNER-UPS 6TH ANNUAL TRIPLE PLAY

CHAMPIONS RUNNER-UP

14 SPORTSWORLD LIL LADY WARRIORS

12 KY THUNDER NEWBURGH KNIGHTS

10 WORTH 96 NASHVILLE CRUISERS

997 LADY PATRIOTS INDIANA HOOSIERS

8 LIL LADY WARRIORS KY LIGHTNING

See the article here:
CENTRAL TN NATIONAL SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION - eteamz

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on CENTRAL TN NATIONAL SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION – eteamz

Second Amendment – Conservapedia

Posted: at 10:44 am

See also gun control.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:[1]

For several decades, the lower federal courts had interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting merely a collective right of state militias.[2] However, the U.S Supreme Court has always called it an individual right. The 2008 Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

In 1786, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Constitutional Convention was held with the idea of amending the Articles. When the convention ended with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they insured that a Bill of Rights would be made, which would provide constitutional guarantees against taking away certain rights.

One of those rights was the right to bear arms. This was intended to prevent the Federal Government from taking away the ability of the states to raise an army and defend itself and arguably to prevent them from taking away from individuals the ability to bear arms.

The meaning of this amendment is controversial with respect to gun control.

The National Rifle Association, which supports gun rights, has a stone plaque in front of its headquarters bearing the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The slogan means that individual citizens have the right to own and use guns.

American law has always said that the militia includes ordinary private citizens, and gun rights advocates say that the amendment means individuals have the right to own and use guns. Gun control advocates began in the late 20th century to say it means only that there is only some sort of collective or state-controlled right.

Supreme Court opinions have all been consistent with the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but the lower court opinions are mixed.

As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is Parker v District of Columbia, in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007 that the DC gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.

The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'''''

Quoted from: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

Down to the Last Second (Amendment)

Participants in the various debates on firearms, crime, and constitutional law may have noticed that the Second Amendment is often quoted differently by those involved. The two main variations differ in punctuation- specifically, in the number of commas used to separate those twenty-seven words. But which is the correct one? The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic. Therefore, a look into the progression of this declaratory and restrictive clause from its inception to its final form is in order.

Before beginning, one must note that common nouns, like "state" and "people," were often capitalized in official and unofficial documents of the era. Also, an obsolete formation of the letter s used to indicate the long s sound was in common usage. The long 's' is subject to confusion with the lower case 'f' ,therefore, Congress" is sometimes spelled as "Congrefs," as is the case in the parchment copy of the Bill of Rights displayed by the National Archives. The quotations listed here are accurate. With the exception of the omission of quotations marks, versions of what is now known as the Second Amendment in boldface appear with the exact spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as the cited originals.

During ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.1

On July 21, John Vining of Delaware was appointed to chair a select committee of eleven to review, and make a report on, the subject of amendments to the Constitution. Each committeeman represented one of the eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution at that time), with James Madison representing Virginia. Unfortunately, no record of the committee's proceedings is known to exist. Seven days later, Vining duly issued the report, one of the amendments reading:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. 2

In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people religiously scrupulous in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty. However, motions to strike the clause were not carried. On August 21, the House enumerated the Amendments as modified, with the fifth article listed as follows:

5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. 3

Finally, on August 24, the House of Representatives passed its proposals for amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the Senate for their consideration. The next day, the Senate entered the document into their official journal. The Senate Journal shows Article the Fifth as:

Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. 4

On September 4, the Senate debated the amendments proposed by the House, and the conscientious objector clause was quickly stricken. Sadly, these debates were held in secret, so records of them do not exist. The Senators agreed to accept Article the Fifth in this form:

...a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed. 5

In further debates on September 9, the Senate agreed to strike the words, "the best," and replace them with, "necessary to the." Since the third and fourth articles had been combined, the Senators also agreed to rename the amendment as Article the Fourth. The Senate Journal that day carried the article without the word, "best," but also without the replacements, "necessary to." Note that the extraneous commas have been omitted:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 6

With two-thirds of the Senate concurring on the proposed amendments, they were sent back to the House for the Representatives' perusal. On September 21, the House notified the Senate that it agreed to some of their amendments, but not all of them. However, they agreed to Article the Fourth in its entirety:

Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth amendments... 7

By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 8

The above version is used almost exclusively today, but aside from the parchment copy, the author was unable to find any other official documents from that era which carry the amendment with the extra commas. In fact, in the appendix of the Senate Journal, Article the Fourth is entered as reading:

Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.9

Also, the Annals of Congress, formally called The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, show the proposed amendment as follows:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.10

Further, once two-thirds of both chambers of the Congress agreed to the proposed amendments, the House passed a resolve to request that the President send copies of them to the governors of the eleven states in the Union, and to those of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Senate concurred on September 26, as recorded in their journal:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the executives of the United States, which have ratified the constitution copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto; and like copies to the executives of the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.11

Fortunately, an original copy of the amendments proposed by the Congress, and sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, does survive. Certified as a true copy by Assembly Secretary Henry Ward, it reads in part:

Article the Fourth, --A well regulated Militia being neceffary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms fhall not be infringed. 12

And so, the proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification. When notifying the President that their legislatures or conventions had ratified some or all of the proposed amendments, some states attached certified copies of them. New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island notified the general government that they had ratified the fourth amendment in this form:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 13

Articles the First and Second were not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, but by December 15, 1791, the last ten articles were. These, of course, are now known as the Bill of Rights. Renumbering the amendments was required since the first two had not been ratified. The 1796 revision of The Federalist on the New Constitution reflects the change as such:

ARTICLE THE SECOND

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.14

This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term "state" is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.15,16, 17

This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. 18

(The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a "literal print" of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)19

Thus, the correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word "state." It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified.

Why the Commas are Important

It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous. These points will be demonstrated later in the Second Amendment Series.

Footnotes to Comment section:

1. Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm, 16 January 2000.

2. Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_scom.htm, 16 January 2000.

3. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 August 1789.

4. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 25 August 1789.

5. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 4 September 1789.

6. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 9 September 1789.

7. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 September 1789.

8. Bill of Rights. National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg, 22 January 2000.

9. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix.

10. Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix

11. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong. 1st sess., 26 September 1789.

12. A True Bill. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/billofrt.jpg, 27 January 2000.

13. U.S. House Journal, 1st Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix Note: Maryland and South Carolina capitalized the "m" in "Militia."

14. The Federalist on the New Constitution, 1796. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/f16b1234.jpg, 17 February 2000.

15. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm, 18 February 2000.

16. Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html, 2 February 2000.

17. Statutes at Large 1845, 21.

18. Second Amendment--Bearing Arms. The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html, 18 February 2000.

19. Text of the Amendments (Literal Print). The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/conamt.html, 18 February 2000.

Liberals have made various efforts to subvert the Second Amendment by enacting unconstitutional gun laws which restrict the ability of individuals to protect themselves against the excesses of government. Examples include:

See also list of celebrities against Second Amendment

Bill of Rights: 1 - Freedom of speech, press, etc. 2 - Right to bear arms 3 - Quartering of soldiers 4 - Warrants 5 - Due process 6 - Right to a speedy trial 7 - Right by trial of a jury 8 - No cruel or unusual punishments 9 - Unenumerated rights 10 - Power to the people and states

11 - Immunity of states to foreign suits 12 - Revision of presidential election procedures 13 - Abolition of slavery 14 - Citizenship 15 - Racial suffrage 16 - Federal income tax 17 - Direct election to the United States Senate 18 - Prohibition of alcohol 19 - Women's suffrage 20 - Terms of the presidency 21 - Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment 22 - Limits the president to two terms 23 - Electoral College 24 - Prohibition of poll taxes 25 - Presidential disabilities 26 - Voting age lowered to 18 27 - Variance of congressional compensation

Follow this link:
Second Amendment - Conservapedia

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment – Conservapedia

Second Amendment | Fox News

Posted: at 10:44 am

Luby's massacre survivor speaks out on gun control debate

Suzanna Hupp slams Hillary Clinton's gun control plan on 'The Kelly File'

Gun control advocates are launching a new regulatory push in California to impose first-in-the-nation instant background checks for ammunition sales, a move that comes as gun viole...

Alan Colmes vs: Larry Pratt on why he believes gun registration is the first step towards total confiscation of all guns

Texas professor is worried about students bringing guns to campus under new law; Daniel Hamermesh sounds off on 'The Kelly File'

Pres. Obama's visit to Oregon a week after shooting massacre not welcome by some Roseburg residents and the publisher of the Roseburg Beacon. 'On the Record' takes a closer look

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: The Judge reminds the people what the 2nd Amendment means in 2015 and why Hillary Clinton should not convince anyone to not have guns

While the FBI continued to analyze the emails Hillary Clinton thought she deleted and her advisers pressed her to hire a Republican criminal defense attorney in Washington, a madma...

Starnes Exclusive: Franklin Graham condemns Obama's reaction to the Oregon school shooting, defends Dr. Ben Carson's controversial comments about the tragedy and discusses his fath...

Viewer tired of talking heads

Donald Trump goes 'On the Record' on his biggest disappointment with Pres. Obama, says Putin clearly has a 'lack of respect for the president. Trump also sounds off on latest 2016 ...

Read more here:
Second Amendment | Fox News

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment | Fox News

Everything you need to know about Bitcoin mining What is …

Posted: at 10:43 am

Currently, based on (1) price per hash and (2) electrical efficiency the best Bitcoin miner options are:

Manufacturer

$474.97

$499.97

$33.87

Bitcoin mining is the process of adding transaction records to Bitcoin's public ledger of past transactions or blockchain. This ledger of past transactions is called the block chain as it is a chain of blocks. The block chain serves to confirm transactions to the rest of the network as having taken place.

Bitcoin nodes use the block chain to distinguish legitimate Bitcoin transactions from attempts to re-spend coins that have already been spent elsewhere.

Bitcoin mining is intentionally designed to be resource-intensive and difficult so that the number of blocks found each day by miners remains steady. Individual blocks must contain a proof of work to be considered valid. This proof of work is verified by other Bitcoin nodes each time they receive a block. Bitcoin uses the hashcash proof-of-work function.

The primary purpose of mining is to allow Bitcoin nodes to reach a secure, tamper-resistant consensus. Mining is also the mechanism used to introduce Bitcoins into the system: Miners are paid any transaction fees as well as a "subsidy" of newly created coins.

This both serves the purpose of disseminating new coins in a decentralized manner as well as motivating people to provide security for the system.

Bitcoin mining is so called because it resembles the mining of other commodities: it requires exertion and it slowly makes new currency available at a rate that resembles the rate at which commodities like gold are mined from the ground.

A proof of work is a piece of data which was difficult (costly, time-consuming) to produce so as to satisfy certain requirements. It must be trivial to check whether data satisfies said requirements.

Producing a proof of work can be a random process with low probability, so that a lot of trial and error is required on average before a valid proof of work is generated. Bitcoin uses the Hashcash proof of work.

Bitcoin mining a block is difficult because the SHA-256 hash of a block's header must be lower than or equal to the target in order for the block to be accepted by the network.

This problem can be simplified for explanation purposes: The hash of a block must start with a certain number of zeros. The probability of calculating a hash that starts with many zeros is very low, therefore many attempts must be made. In order to generate a new hash each round, a nonce is incremented. See Proof of work for more information.

The Bitcoin mining network difficulty is the measure of how difficult it is to find a new block compared to the easiest it can ever be. It is recalculated every 2016 blocks to a value such that the previous 2016 blocks would have been generated in exactly two weeks had everyone been mining at this difficulty. This will yield, on average, one block every ten minutes.

As more miners join, the rate of block creation will go up. As the rate of block generation goes up, the difficulty rises to compensate which will push the rate of block creation back down. Any blocks released by malicious miners that do not meet the required difficulty target will simply be rejected by everyone on the network and thus will be worthless.

When a block is discovered, the discoverer may award themselves a certain number of bitcoins, which is agreed-upon by everyone in the network. Currently this bounty is 25 bitcoins; this value will halve every 210,000 blocks. See Controlled Currency Supply.

Additionally, the miner is awarded the fees paid by users sending transactions. The fee is an incentive for the miner to include the transaction in their block. In the future, as the number of new bitcoins miners are allowed to create in each block dwindles, the fees will make up a much more important percentage of mining income.

Continued here:
Everything you need to know about Bitcoin mining What is ...

Posted in Bitcoin | Comments Off on Everything you need to know about Bitcoin mining What is …

Ron Paul LewRockwell.com

Posted: at 10:41 am

The Debt-Ceiling Charade

Dont mention the wars, the empire, or the welfare state, says Ron Paul.

10/20/2015

Politicians Murder Carloads Overseas

While being shocked, shocked about shootings here, says Ron Paul.

10/13/2015

Bombing Syria?

I wish no one were doing it, says Ron Paul.

10/8/2015

Blame America?

No, blame neocons, says Ron Paul.

9/22/2015

Congress Downs More Martinis

As they crash the economy, says Ron Paul.

9/15/2015

Why the Refugee Crisis?

Ron Paul on the crimes of empire.

9/7/2015

About This Bear Market

The guilty party is the Fed, not China, says Ron Paul.

9/2/2015

Subsidized Mass Migration

Ron Paul on the libertarian response.

8/25/2015

Only Full-Blown Libertarianism Works

Watering it down hurts the cause, says Ron Paul.

8/18/2015

Concentration Camps in America Again?

The military-police state complex sure wants them. Aricle by Ron Paul.

7/28/2015

A Victory for Peace, a Defeat for the Neocons

What could be better? Article by Ron Paul.

7/21/2015

Are We Greece Squared?

Ron Paul on the frightening economic future of the US.

7/14/2015

Stop Attacking the Cuban People

End US interventionism, says Ron Paul.

7/8/2015

Who Loves Fascist Care?

Blacked-robed dictators and Republicans, says Ron Paul.

6/30/2015

The Big Bear

Ron Paul on coming market turmoil.

6/24/2015

The US Stabs the Dollar

By bullying China and Russia, says Ron Paul.

6/23/2015

Government Ritual Murder

Ron Paul on the death penalty.

6/16/2015

The Soros Conspiracy

Ron Paul on making money off war.

6/8/2015

Don’t Hail the Court Ruling on Illegal Spying

The only way to reform the PATRIOT Act is to repeal it, says Ron Paul.

5/13/2015

If the Government Calls It ‘Freedom’

You know its evil. Article by Ron Paul.

5/5/2015

Politicians Hate the Productive

Thus the war to impoverish them. Article by Ron Paul.

4/28/2015

US Sends Troops to Ukraine

To support more political murders. Article by Ron Paul.

4/21/2015

Who Benefits From Militarism and War?

Ron Paul on the merchants of death.

4/14/2015

Congress Hates Us

So does the whole regime. Article by Ron Paul.

4/7/2015

Take a Sledgehammer to the IMF

And put it in the same grave as the Fed. Article by Ron Paul.

3/31/2015

The Stage Is Set for Another Big War

Ron Paul on why the US wants it.

3/28/2015

After 12-Years of Crime in Iraq

The US government must just march home, says Ron Paul.

3/24/2015

Why Do American Weapons End Up in Enemy Hands?

Or are they not enemies? Article by Ron Paul.

3/21/2015

One People, One World, One Government

Ron Paul on when the US sank its claws into the whole planet.

3/16/2015

What Is It Good for? Absolutely Nothing

Ron Paul on the DHS police state.

3/3/2015

A Criminal Year

Since the violent US coup in Ukraine. Article by Ron Paul.

2/24/2015

How Many More Piles of Corpses?

Ron Paul on governments signature occupation.

2/17/2015

Blank Check for Professional Hitmen

And the Merchants of Death. Article by Ron Paul.

2/13/2015

The Good Doctor

Continued here:
Ron Paul LewRockwell.com

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul LewRockwell.com

What is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution?

Posted: October 19, 2015 at 9:43 am

anon170073 Post 6

To poster 4. By "loved one" do you mean a wife/husband or more along the lines of a girlfriend? Technically, a spouse is able to plead the fifth in cases dealing with their significant other. It isn't required that you do or do not plead the fifth though, but you cannot be forced to incriminate them.

Can you use the fifth amendment in a simple assault case?

does the fifth amendment apply when you have been ordered to testify against a loved one? Do you have to testify or can you "plead the fifth" to not incriminate a loved one?

My question was and has not been answered yet. How does the 5th Amendment to the US constitution involve the taking of real property without just compensation? Very important and what are the consequences?

Moderator's reply: Unfortunately, we are not equipped to respond to specific questions, which is why we created this discussion section on each article page. In this section, a reader may discuss article topics with other readers. Whether and when your questions will be answered, however, depends on fellow readers and posters.

Under provisions of the Fifth Amendment, can a defendant be required to produce, before the time of trial, relevant evidence to the prosecution?

How does the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution involve the taking of Real Property without just compensation?

Original post:
What is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution?

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on What is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution?