Stand by Me.

November 30, 2010 at 5:34 P.M. A call was received at 5:13 P.M. from 800-950-4695 "303 Service." A worm or virus slowed or froze several of the computers at one local branch of the New York Public Library (NYPL). I have made future reservations on NYPL computers. I will move to several different branches of the library as well as other public computers in the days ahead.

November 30, 2010 at 9:20 A.M. Calls were received from 212-636-6501; on November 29, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. from 212-636-6501 on November 28, 2010 at 4:44 P.M. Continuing computer crimes make accessing this blog and my writings difficult, preventing me from making progress in drafts of new works. I will try to write from public computers (plural) later today.

November 29, 2010 at 5:27 P.M. Continuing attacks against me and my writings must be expected at all times. I will write from public computers later today and tomorrow. I expect "errors" to be inserted by New Jersey's hackers in the essay below on many occasions. I will struggle to make all necessary corrections as soon as I become aware of them. ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me'" and "Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba.")

Scott Lemee, "Obama: The Man Who Couldn't," in International Socialist Review, November-December, 2010, at pp. 67-68. (Mr. Obama is being tested, both at home and internationally.)
Tariq Ali, The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad (New York & London: Verso, 2010), 160 pages, $17.00. (Mr. Obama is losing the Left.)
"Interview With Michael Ratner," in International Socialist Review, November-December, 2010, at pp. 7-12. ("I would say that there is literally nothing that indicates Obama cares a whit more about protecting fundamental rights of people than Bush.")
Scott Shane & Andrew W. Lehren, "Leaked Cables Offer a Raw Look Inside U.S. Diplomacy: Dispatches Chronicle Threats and Tensions," in The New York Times, November 29, 2010, at p. A1. (Leaks from inside the U.S. government aimed at embarassing the American president.)
Mark Mazetti, "Blurring Line Between Spy and Diplomat," in The New York Times, November 29, 2010, at p. A1. ("The Great Game" and the night managers.)
Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (New York: The Foundation Press, 1988), pp. 787-88. ("Communication and Expression.")

As regards the principles of U.S. Constitutional law cited, I am quoting valid and good law as of November, 2010.

This morning as I attempted to proof-read my writings at these blogs. I experienced the usual harassments and hacker-inserted "errors" as well as several obstructions that prevented me from writing with or at my home computer. There was also a failed attempt from a remote location to turn off my television set which is shared with my family. I can only hope that there is an international audience for this unseemly spectacle of public censorship in America. I have reason to believe that there is such an audience. ("What is it like to be censored in America?")

The content of my opinions or whether officials agree with what I say is irrelevant to the illegality -- even criminality -- in this effort to prevent speech concerning political issues by me. One man's intellect and words are frightening to an entire jurisdiction and political faction merely because he is speaking truth to power. These frightened corrupt officials call me "unethical." ("Freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal" and "America's Holocaust.")

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is especially intended to protect controversial political discussions and debates, including articulation of minority opinions or views of complex questions. If government agents, official or unofficial -- whether acting directly or indirectly through "useful fools" -- can get away with this level of censorship of copyright-protected writings or expressions (no images can be posted by me at my sites), then the entire primary purpose of the First Amendment's speech protections is frustrated and denied. This censorship is a dangerous step towards tyranny.

Americans are dying ostensibly to defend rights of expression for their fellow citizens as I type these words. We must not be less brave than U.S. soldiers are in Afghanistan when standing up for our rights at home. ("Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution.")

For any censorship to succeed is for federal law enforcement to appear weak or incompetent (at best). Perhaps humiliation of the U.S. President is another goal of the Cuban-American Right-wingers and their mafia friends who are, I suspect, behind my daily experiences of computer crimes. Cybercrimes committed against me may be another kind of "elbow in the face" of Mr. Obama. After all, my experiences this morning were far from unusual. ("More Censorship and Cybercrime" and "I Affirm This Single Moment of Rebellion" then "Is Senator Menendez a Suspect in Mafia-Political Murder in New Jersey?")

The name of the person credited with elbowing President Obama in the face is reported to be: "Rey Decerega" ("Rey" = King + "Decerega" = "DC Reagan"? The "King" of "DC" is "Reagan.") This is probably only an amusing coincidence. The individual in question is affiliated with the Hispanic Congressional Caucus and is said to be "friendly" with a number of Cuban-American politicians. Perhaps this person is also a friend of "John Paul Rathbone"? ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security.")

In addition to any disapproval of what I say, there is evident hostility to me personally. The "computer crimes" that I experience are about deliberate efforts by U.S. officials in America's most failed jurisdiction to further harm me. I expect New Jersey to deny this criminal malice. However, the fact of hatred on the part of Garden State politicians and their servants is obvious from the information already posted at these blogs. I am not troubled about whether you are unhappy about being indicted for corruption in Trenton. ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" then "Anne Milgram Does it Again!" and "Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")

Use of technologies of so-called "touchless torture" to inflict psychological harm as part of a personal vendetta by powerful politicians has been demonstrated to produce "permanent and serious" injuries to victims. ("What is it like to be plagiarized in America?" and "What is it like to be tortured?" then "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")

I am the victim of these crimes and unethical conduct by New Jersey lawyers and judges. Much worse is the victimization of innocent others around me and of the Constitution of the United States of America. Animosity does not excuse a public official from complying with the law, Ms. Poritz. I am not seeking and, indeed, I have no interest in whether there is a "good opinion" of my character in Trenton or Union City, New Jersey. I think much less of New Jersey's legal establishment than such persons think of me -- and with good reason for my views which seem to be shared by quite a few persons in the world, including many officials in the U.S. Attorney's Office and American lawyers from many parts of the country. "Ethics" is not the strongest quality of America's "Soprano State." ("Mafia Influence in New Jersey Courts and Politics" and "Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.")

Hatred of me and use of psychological torture techniques derived from intelligence agencies may explain the absurd attempt to label me "unethical" as compared with persons like Senator Menendez or Wayne Bryant. No apologies have yet been received by me for New Jersey's twenty-one years of crimes committed against me and so many others. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" then "Da Jersey Code" and "New Jersey's Politically Connected Lawyers on the Tit.")

Legal ethics in New Jersey is a kind of "Wonderland." Since I happen to live in New York, I feel like Alice arguing against the Evil Queen at a "Mad Tea Party":

"But once one asks why self-government and political participation are to be valued, one is apt to come to an answer that immediately suggests a broader ground for valuing freedom of speech itself, and hence a broader notion of what 'speech' is to be protected. Theorists defending free speech as crucial to the polity in a representative system are inclined to respond to the 'why' by arguing that political participation is valuable in part because it enhances personal growth and self-realization. But if that is so, then do not those values themselves explain much of our commitment to freedom of speech without the intermediate step of the Meiklejohn thesis? [See A. Meiklejohn, Political Freedom (1960)] And do they not explain it in terms broad enough to encompass the full sweep of expressional activity with far less strain?"

Here is the crucial reasoning:

"More generally, it must be said that Meiklejohn's conception of the first amendment, and Holmes', were both far too focused on intellect and rationality to accomodate the emotive role of free expression -- its place in the evolution, definition, and proclamation of individual and group identity."

This is my suggestion to friends in America and Cuba: Revolution and socialism are compatible with civil liberties, as is security for any nation. It is no good being safe if we are not free:

"Justice Harlan was to recognize in Cohen v. California, [403 U.S. 26 (1971)] that 'expression conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well.' In holding constitutionally protected an act (wearing a jacket bearing the words 'F____ the Draft' into a courthouse corridor) that the dissent dismissed as 'mainly conduct and little speech,' Justice Harlan's opinion for the majority implicitly rejected the hoary dichotomy between reason and desire that so often constricts the reach of the first amendment. At least implicitly, the Cohen Court projected a more capacious image of the place occupied by free expression in our system, defending the 'constitutional right of free expression' as 'putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our system rests.' ... "

Lawrence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, at pp. 787-88 (emphasis in original). ("John Rawls and Justice.")