Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
Golden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 umentation of Police Surveillance of FirstAmendment ActivityMarc StickgoldGolden Gate University School of Law, mstickgoldt^gmail.comFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalconunons.law.ggu.edu/pubs& Part of the Constitutional Law CommonsRecommended Citationss Ư. Detroit MetvyJ. of Urban Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 L. 877 (1978)This Article is brought to >x>u for fore and open screw by the Faculty Scholarship at GGU taw Digital Common,, It has been accepted for iChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
nclusion in Publications by an authorreed administrator of GGV Law Digital Commons For more information. please contact ifischertf ggu.edu.Chapter 2: Golden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 4 newsletter of the Michigan Association for Consumer Protection (MACP), a small citizens’ group, contained a half-page critique of a state senator who was “Chairman of the subcommittee that has power to kill consumer protection bill 4001.”’ The critique’s author, Walter Benkert, president of MACP, Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 called the contents of the senator’s 1973-74 report “garbage,” and went on to attack the senator as “support[ing] the business preferences over the peChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
ople’s need for protection.”* 1 2 Benkert concluded that House Bill “4001 will either die in committee or become a watered down bill . . . .”3 The newGolden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 for consumer rights.4Shortly after the newsletter was issued, a member of the Michigan House of Representatives sent a letter to the director of the Michigan State Police, requesting the director to “note the attached• Associate Professor of Law & Director of Clinical Programs, Golden Gate Universi Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 ty School of Law. B.A., 1960, University of Illinois; J.D., 1963, Northwestern University. The author wishes to extend deepest gratitude to his co-couChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
nsel and comrades in this work: Attorneys George Corsetti, Margaret Nichols, and Richard Soble. They are responsible in innumerable ways for whatever Golden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 tter, Feb. 1974, at 1. The full four-page mimeograph newsletter is attached as an appendix to the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in Benkert V. Michigan State Police, No. 74-023-934-AZ (Wayne County Cir. CL, Mich., filed July 26. 1974).House Bill 4001, the “Michigan Consumer Protecti Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 on Act,” authorized the Attorney General to combat deceptive and unfair trade practices by seeking injunctive relief, restitution, recovery of investiChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
gation costs, and civil penalties. The bill was introduced in the Michigan House on January 10,1973, was passed by the House as amended, on January 30Golden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 .Id. at 4.878JOURNAL OF URBAN LA w[Vol. 55:877[newsletter] from the Michigan Association for Consumer Protection, I would like to know what this organization is.”5 6 The letter also requested information on Benkert, the MACP president and author of the critique. Less than two weeks later, the Intell Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 igence Section of the Michigan State Police sent a memo to the director. The memo summarized and quoted from the MACP’s articles of incorporation (filChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
ed with the State Department of the Treasury), and concluded: “We have no information that the group is subversive or violent.”8 A copy of this memo fGolden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 been making inquiries concerning the activities and political views of the group and its members? The result of this revelation was Benkert V. Michigan State Police,9 a suit challenging the legality of such a politically motivated inquiry, as well as attacking the entire “subversive investigations” Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 apparatus of the state police. Following publicity about the suit10 11 and the police admission that the “inquiry” was “unauthorized,”” the complaintChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
was amended to greatly expand the suit.12 It has since proceeded with fourteen plaintiffs as representatives of “a class action which seeks to declarGolden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 ed existence and operation; and to enjoin a wide range of illegal and unconstitutional police activ-5.A copy of the letter sent to Colonel Plants, Director of the Michigan State Police, by Representative Huffman, on February 22, 1974, was also forwarded to the state senator who was the subject of cr Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 iticism in the MACP newsletter. The letter to Colonel Plants is attached as an appendix to the plaintiffs' Complaint, supra note 1.6.This memo is attaChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
ched as an appendix to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, supra note 1.7.Id.8.George Corsetti, a member of MACP, indicated, in an interview with the author on MarGolden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: Docu Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 icial concerning the political views of the MACP and its members.9.Benkert V. Michigan State Police, No. 74-023-934-AZ (Wayne County Cir. Ct., Mich., filed July 26. 1974).10.Detroit Free Press, July 27, 1974, at 3, col. 2; Detroit News, Oct. 20, 1974, at 2B, col. 1; Detroit News, Aug. 29, 1974, at 9 Chapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2 A, col. 2.11.See Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Benkert V. Michigan State Police, No. 74-023-934-AZ (Wayne CouChapter 2- Yesterdays Paranoia is Todays Reality- Documentation_2
nty Cir. Ct., Mich., filed Aug. 8, 1974) at 3. See also Detroit Free Press, Aug. 24, 1974, at col. 2 Detroit Free Press, Sept. 28, 1974, at 7A, col.l.Golden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: DocuGolden Gate University School of LawGGU Law Digital CommonsPublicationsFaculty Scholarship1978Chapter 2: Yesterday's Paranoia is Today's Reality: DocuGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook