Indiana Lawyer

February 27, 2008

2008 IN Dist. 2 Congressional Press Release

Tony Zirkle Responds to Puckett-Donnelly’s FISA PositionsAfter reading the
statements regarding FISA from Congressman Donnelly and GOP Challenger
Luke Puckett, I feel it is necessary to state my position for public
consumption.

Both Puckett and Donnelly are lost in the trees on this issue and either
do not understand or are unwilling to address the fundamental underlying
issue as to why FISA is necessary in the war on terror.  The foundational
issue is the excess power that the legislative and executive branches have
allow the judiciary to hoard for itself.  The Jefferson Memorial quotes
the former president as stating, “I have sworn upon the alter of God,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

One area of unaddressed tyranny is the excess power currently resting in
the judicial branch.  I have previously in 2002 issued a press release
calling for a constitutional amendment so that a super-majority in both
branches of Congress, along with the executive signature, could over-turn
legal decisions.  The Supreme Court’s striking down the Communications
Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act ) are examples
where the Supreme Court has substantially advanced the secular regressive
agenda.

In the terror surveillance area, the main reason why laws like FISA are
needs is because courts will through out evidence that is procedurally
tainted because of what is known as the exclusionary rule and the fruit of
the poisonous tree.  For instance, if a police officer arrests someone for
driving as a habitual traffic violator and then sees that person driving
the very next day without first checking the validity of his licence,
searches his car and finds the dead body in the back seat, a judge would
likely throw out the driving offense under the exclusionary rule and the
body (and with it the murder conviction) because the body was obtained as
the fruit of a poisonous tree search.

The exclusionary rule is unbalanced and the remedy is extreme.  Murderers
should not walk because a police officer in the heat of an investigation
guessed wrongly on a procedural matter that even the U.S. Supreme Court
can’t agree on beyond a 5-4 decision.  I propose that we modify the
exclusionary rule to have no application to murder, attempted murder and
terror investigations.  If the government needs to use tainted evidence in
a murder, attempted murder or terrorist investigation, the remedy will be
the exclusion of the death penalty.  This policy will still provide some
deterrence to police overzealous conduct, and the very worst criminals
will no longer be able to walk our streets Scott-free because a police
officer guessed on the wrong side of a vague and disputed interpretation
of the 4th Amendment.

As I have stated earlier, the central focus of this campaign is to target
pornography and prostitution.  For every major campaign issues, I will
make an argument as to how unbridled porn prostitution affects it.  In the
FISA area, porn was the root cause of this problem.  In 1961, the U.S.
Supreme Court rendered a decision in Mapp v. Ohio, a porn case which is
summarized below.  Lawyers often joked that the police spent too much time
looking at Mapp’s porn collection, so the Supreme Court rewarded Ohio and
the other 49 states with an extreme decision that forced upon all state
and local courts the exclusionary rule as the only remedy for future
police misconduct.  No other legal decision besides Mapp’s porn case has
lead to the acquittals and dismissals of more criminal cases in history.
Yes, it was a porn case that has allowed more murderers, child molesters,
rapists, robbers and drug dealers to walk our streets than any other
decision in history.

Mapp v. Ohio case decided in 1961 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Dollree Mapp
was convicted in a state court of possessing pornographic material in
violation of Ohio law. Her conviction was obtained on the basis of
evidence taken by the police when they entered (1957) her boardinghouse
without a search warrant while looking for gambling materials. The Supreme
Court, in overturning her conviction, declared that the exclusionary rule
(based on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution), which prohibits the
use in federal court of evidence obtained through an illegal search and
seizure, extended also to state courts. The ruling provoked a good deal of
controversy; while proponents of the exclusionary rule claim that it is
the only means of assuring freedom from illegal searches, opponents argue
that a criminal should not go free because of a police officer’s violation
of the Constitution.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-MappvOhi.html

Tony Zirkle

February 10, 2008  PRESS RELEASE

Tony Zirkle for Congress: Zirkle Calls for Abortion Reforms

I will be holding a press conference on Friday, February 15, 2008 between 11:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. in my South Bend law office at 110 N. Main St., South Bend, IN  46601 to discuss this press release.

Voters deserve to know a congressional candidate’s stand on abortion and the reasoning behind his or her position.

My position is that of a practical pro-lifer (PPL). That means that one has to recognize where we are, where we want to be and how to legally get there. Many Republicans have claimed they were pro-life, have received votes and have achieved election, yet almost all have failed to move the pro-life ball forward one yard. A PPL reluctantly concedes that abortion on demand is currently protected by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that though we wish to eliminate all abortions that we can, no Republican or pro-lifer has yet proposed a plan that has substantially advanced us to where pro-lifers want to go.

I’m proposing a 4 stage plan to dramatically reduce the incidences of abortion:

1. Stage one – It’s the Kids, Smartie
Incorporate my 2006 4 stage plan to take down the porn-capitalists who are mis-educating our children to choose dissolute, undisciplined lifestyles that places them in the situation where they are tempted to choose abortion.  Justice O’Conner once wrote that women might engage in risky behavior more often becasue abortion is available as a back-up if contraception fails.

What we teach our children matters. Plato recorded Socrates advocating this position and urged the Greeks to cease teaching their children examples of so-called “gods” who murder, rape, and pillage. Plato taught Aristotle who educated Alexander the Great who conquered the world from one tiny peninsula.

2. Amend the Constitution for Agreed Fundamental Rights
Arguing that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) acted ultra vires outside their assigned role of interpreting the law to declare abortion to be a fundamental right is difficult if you accept their prior decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 when SCOTUS struck down a law that banned contraception for married women, and the Lochner era (1897-1937) decisions that struck down laws that banned teaching foreign languages and that mandated public education. SCOTUS has employed substantive due process fundamental rights to create rights that emanate from the penumbras (shadows) of other rights contained in the liberty clause of the 5^th Amendment as well as in the 9^th Amendment which states that other rights are retained by the people. Some of those unlisted rights SCOTUS has found include the right to travel, marry, associate and more recently in Lawrence v. Texas, where SCOTUS struck down an anti-sodomy law, for example.

With respect to some of those rights, nearly all of us would agree; therefore, we should publicly debate which fundamental rights the U.S. Constitution should protect and then codify them. I would vote against the rights found in Roe and Lawrence. I have mixed feelings about Griswold because of federalism concerns. I support the right to travel, the right to learn a foreign language and the right to seek private education outside the public school system.

By amending the constitution to codify agreed fundamental rights, one of the most powerful arguments in favor of the rational behind Roe will dissipate.

3. Read the 5^th Amendment – Only the Government can take life but only with prior due process
The 5^th Amendment states that life can not be deprived without due process. An unborn child with a beating heart and brain waives is a life worthy of due process. Accordingly, I a proposing the following:

a. Un-privatize abortions. All abortions must be given by a government doctor and only at a Veteran’s clinic. While seeking an abortion, the young mother will run the risk of walking past a disabled veteran in a wheelchair with nothing below the knee and might ask herself, “Young lady, that’s a potential American soldier you have in there. Would you reconsider?”

b. Before an abortion procedure is granted, the child will have an appointed guardian ad litem and a hearing within 48 hours of the mother’s initial request. An administrative law judge would hear from the GAL and the mother and must rule within 2 hours. Information for public free adoptions will be available.  Adoption seekers will pay $10,000 to get on the list and the fund will go to funding Veterans’ benefits.

c. Abortions will cost $1,000. If the mother is on public aid and can not afford it, the public benefits will be deducted. The profits will go to the Veteran’s administration to cover the increasing costs of Veteran’s health care.

d. I am proposing this as a pilot project in Indiana where we will have VA clinics in Crown Point, South Bend, Ft. Wayne, Marion, Kokomo, Indianapolis, Evansville, & Jeffersonville, Terre Haute & Richmond, and possibly Lafayette and Muncie. Other government services will be unified on these VA campuses including the local social security office and regional BMV branches which can serve as reinstatement centers. Indiana will serve as a pilot project state for a more secure fed/state unified government id, and state law enforcement officials will have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws. Immigration and passport centers will also be housed at the VA campuses. Fees from immigration services, BMV services, passports, adoption seekers, and abortion while it’s still legal, will serve to defray the costs. The goal is to make the VA clinics serlf-funding.

e. Rape & Incest. Increased education about free morning after pills and rape kit and trauma centers will be available. By taking the morning after pill prior to conception, the decision of whether to abort can be avoided.

f. DNA Forensic & Drug testing centers. VA clinics will obtain funding through criminal DNA & Chemist drug lab testing lab centers. Reimbursement will come from bonds and fines from criminal defendants. The current practice in drug prosecutions is to let drug defendants bond out for a few hundred or thousand dollars and then give every penny back to the defendant if he or she simply shows up to court. Upon conviction, mandatory cost reimbursement should take place. By having quick DNA and drug testing turn-arounds, jurisdictions like Lake Co., Indiana will not have to release with $0 bail many of their drug dealers in order to avoid a speedy trial motion. When I was a Lake Co. drug unit prosecutor, we temporarily changed the policy when I charged 230 or so felony drug cases in 5 months, most of which were uncharged cases in Gary some of which were four years old. The murder rate dropped 25% the next year.

g. Paternity testing. VA clinics will also receive funding from paternity testing which will become mandatory for all children born out of wedlock. The fees will be collected from the parents and the dna results for mother, father & child will go into a national crime prevention data base.

4. Go after the money

A PPLer has to realize that they do not currently have the votes to stack SCOTUS with pro-lifers or to amend the constitution. One of the main pro-life obstructors is that a significant portion of the money paid for the millions of abortions we have seen in this country goes directly to the democrat party. Many have argued that NARAL now runs the democratic party. Unless you’re in a nearly 50-50 district like Indiana’s 2^nd, a pro-life democrat would have a nearly impossible time getting through a democratic primary.

By taking money out of democrat party coffers and diverting it to veterans, pro-life democrats and republicans will be able to win primaries in increasing numbers, pro-life votes will consolidate, and the pro-life position will steadily increase in strength until abortion on demand goes the way of the dodo.

Please e-mail me if you wish to be removed from other press release e-mails.

I can be contacted at campaign2008@tonyzirkle.com

My campaign Web site is www.TonyZirkle.com/campaign

Tony Zirkle
317 658-0107