The Real Due Process.

"The Fourteenth Amendment, in declaring that no State 'shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' undoubtedly intended . . . that equal protection and security should be given to all [and] they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts...."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Field, Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 35 (1885)


Due Process is a term that is difficult to define. Many courts have tried to define it, to create tests to measure it, and show equality in it.
But, if you look at it, and think about it, Due Process is a rather simple concept.

The base version of Due Process is that it has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

All three parts are equally important. Without any of those three elements, there would be a violation of Due Process.

This leads us to the question of:

"Where is the beginning of Due Process?"

When this country was created, it was done so with the understanding that the government drew it's power from the permissions of it's citizens.

As the source of the sovereignty, we have a right to have our legislation passed in accordance to the social contract created with the Constitution.

Every time that a law is passed outside of the original construction methods that the Constitution lays out, our Due Process rights are being violated.

The Legislative Branch does in fact have the ability to suspend our rights for a time. That leads us to an understanding of the two types of Due Process.

Procedural Due Process
"Procedurally, due process prescribes the manner in which the government may deprive persons of their life, liberty, or property. In short, the procedural guarantees of due process entitle litigants to fair process." Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com
To take that quote and to think about it leads one to understand that our Procedural Due Process rights guarantee us that our rights will only be suspended by certain methods.
Procedural Due Process is the method by which the government can suspend our rights for a time.

Substantive Due Process
"Substantively, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect persons from legislation infringing on certain individual rights. Such individual rights may be expressly enumerated in a constitutional provision, as are the liberties that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"These unenumerated rights have been derived from Supreme Court precedent, common law, history, and moral philosophy. Such rights, the Court said, "represent the very essence of ordered liberty" and embody "principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288 [1937])" Excerpt from TheFreeDictionary.com
Substantive Due Process is the safeguards against encroachment of our rights by the government.
Now we can explore the idea of:

"Where is the 'middle' in Due Process?"
The "middle" in Due Process is the breaking of a law, and the beginning of the Court process.

This is the portion that most people try to define when talking about Due Process.

Here is where people mix up the idea of "Due Process OF law" vs. "Due Process IN law."

"Due Process OF law" is the entirety of Law.

"Due Process IN law" is merely in the Court Room.
And lastly:

"Where is the 'end' in Due Process?"
The 'end' in Due Process is exactly that, the end of a courts sentence on a person.

The finality of a sentence. The completion.

Without that end in a sentence, not only is our Due Process rights violated, but we are put into a form of Involuntary Servitude.
To recap, Due Process has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is very limited in it's allowance of suspension of rights, and exponential in it's protection of rights.

A simple concept to understand, but a hard one to put into practice.

Until you know where the boundaries are...

like to find inmates at institutions and county jails

https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/siteInfoAction.do?siteId=50100

Another example of Goverment waste

Killer, sex offender to be released
Citizens attend meeting about Sayers’ release

http://www.rhinelanderdailynews.com/articles/2010/08/04/news/doc4c5985e941735617958088.txt#blogcomments

This is what we are up agianst... I think it is time to speak out and "try" to educate him about these programs. Emails anyone....

Suder introduces legislation to keep dangerous criminals behind bars

Madison (Press Release) – Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) introduced legislation Wednesday that would repeal former Governor Jim Doyle's dangerous and controversial Early Release program.

"This legislation will make Wisconsin a safer place to live and work by eliminating a program that makes Wisconsin a safer place to commit crime," said Suder. 

The program allows drunk drivers, drug dealers, identity thieves and other criminals to significantly reduce their sentences through good behavior by appealing to hand-picked political appointees and government bureaucrats—not judges, prosecutors or law enforcement officials.

"Since its inception, I have argued against this short-sighted and risky program because it circumvents the rule of law and puts dangerous criminals back on the street," said Suder.  "If we fail to hold criminals accountable for their heinous acts, what kind of message does that send to would-be offenders and the community at large?"

The Doyle Administration implemented the failed program in the last state budget under the guise of saving Wisconsin money.  Almost two years later, there have been no credible numbers that prove the program has saved taxpayers what Doyle promised.  

"The only thing Early Release has succeeded in doing is making our streets more dangerous, and I would argue that you cannot put a price on the safety of Wisconsin's citizens," said Suder.

Here is his email address: Rep.Suder@legis.wisconsin.gov

Full article:

http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14351966

Court rules serial sex offender confessions inadmissible

Court rules serial sex offender confessions inadmissible

http://www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com/?p=310116

A man who confessed to sexually assaulting more than 20 children cannot be sentenced for this, because his admission was legally inadmissible, according to a ruling by the Third District Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  Ronnie Peebles, who was on probation for a prior offense, had ile participating in court-ordered sex-offender treatment. The appmade the admission wheals court ruled that it violated the federal and state constitution to use this information in a resentencing by a judge.

Peebles was convicted in 2005 of sexually assaulting a child and received a light sentence partly because he had no prior record of sexual abuse. But the judge in that case later threw the book at Peebles after he admitted, while undergoing court-ordered therapy, that he had assaulted more than 20 children in his life.

The appeals court opinion, handed down last week, concluded that because the treatment was a condition of Peebles’ probation, he was compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence, a violation of his constitutional rights. In treatment, Peebles was required to admit to counselors his entire history of sex offenses, whether they had led to criminal prosecutions or not, and he was even required to take polygraph tests to determine if he had admitted to all his crimes.

Peebles, who lived in the Green Bay area, had no prior sex offenses on his record and was originally sentenced by a Brown County judge to a year of county jail and five years of probation. Peebles participated in treatment, but his probation officer found evidence he was cutting other corners, according to the opinion. The convict had volunteered to work at a church where children would be present; he had attended story time at a library with his girlfriend and her child; and he had gone to his daughter’s school (but never went in), all violations of his probation.

At the hearing to revoke Peebles’ probation, prosecutors argued for the tough new sentence because he had admitted to being “a pedophile” with a long history of victimizing children. The judge accepted the confessions as evidence (Peebles’ defender didn’t object) and commented that he was “shaken to (his) roots” by the case because the prior sentence had been given with the understanding that Peebles “had no prior record of any type of aberrant sexual behavior.” The judge sentenced Peebles to 25 years in prison follow by 15 years of extended supervision.

But the Court of Appeals concluded that because the evidence considered at that hearing was unconstitution al, the sentence, barring an appeal by the prosecution to the state Supreme Court, will have to be recalculated by a new judge who won’t figure in the confessions.

The opinion cited a landmark 1977 case where the state Supreme Court found that “the privilege against self-incrimination extends to persons on probation” and that probation officers can’t force convicts to fess up to probation violations or other incriminating evidence. To prevent a situation where convicts refuse to talk openly to probation officers, however, this 1977 decision created a new rule granting immunity for such confessions, so they wouldn’t be admissible in court.
Last week’s appeals court ruling didn’t consider whether that immunity rule applied in this case. It based its decision solely on its conclusion that using Peebles’ confessions as evidence violated both the state and federal constitutions.