In the court of JU, I'm a condemned man.

Why? Simply because I stand behind rights that our founding fathers have cherished, and for which countless soldiers have fought and died. The consensus seems to be that I am to open my home to any and everyone who requests it and allow them to filter through everything in order to prove our innocence.

I'm hurt, honestly. Deeply hurt that you would be so quick to judge me, even as I am only standing firm to principles I have espoused consistently in my tenure at JU.

Why were the Bill of Rights implemented? Was it to give criminals a break? No, it was to ensure that the government exercised a consistent standard in investigating and prosecuting crimes. The Bill of Rights exists for all of us.

Would you similarly insist that I submit every word I write to a government agency for scrutiny? Would you insist that I go to a government approved church where the minister's words must fit within the confines of government regulation? I highly doubt you would do either. Why, then, would you insist I allow them to perform an illegal search and seizure?

To answer your question, we DO make certain lifestyle decisions that a government agent with little understanding of the beliefs upon which they are based would look upon disfavorably. But everything we do is well within the confines of the law, and our rights.

I own no guns (but do not oppose them), I do not do drugs (but don't oppose them either), but the reaction of the majority of respondents on this thread is PRECISELY why I am asserting my 4th amendment rights. My steadfast insistence on their remaining intact pisses you off, enough that many of you, if you had the power to do so, would probably deliberately word the contents of a report in such a way as to imply our guilt. I have no reason to assume that a social worker would do any less.

Have none of you studied history enough to remember McCarthyism? People were greatly persecuted by spurious complaints by angry neighbors, and their persecution was greatly enhanced by information obtained through violations of the 4th amendment. It is a principle reason why many of our wiretapping laws are now in place.

I'm sorry that you feel that standing by the Constitution is an illegal and suspicious act. But the Constitution wasn't meant as a haven for the guilty; it was meant as a shelter for the innocent. And it was meant to ensure that the government does its job, and does it fairly and objectively.

If an officer arrives at my home with a warrant, I will allow them in with no protest, no resistance (I will, however, require that they stay within the parameters of the warrant; again, such is my right). I am not out to resist the government, just to ensure its compliance. If I could afford an attorney, they would be doing no less (but I'm assuming the same set that assumes my guilt would assume hiring an attorney to be a sign of guilt as well). The simple fact is, though...a $5,000 retainer might as well be a $5 million retainer at this point. I simply cannot afford it.

Until I can prove myself innocent, however, I guess I remain guilty in your eyes. I'm sorry to see that's the case.