Arizona to fight our GOV. and OTHER COUNTRIES????? WTH!!!!!!!

[Westernbiker]

CAN YOU FRIGGEN BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!????????? WHAT THE HE77 IS WRONG WITH OUR GOV.!!!???

YOU MUST WATCH THIS: IMPEACH OBAMA NOW	powered by Aeva

[Oss]

No surprise  You did not expect Obama to take the side of citizens over illegals and the socialist leftist concept of international law over the us constitution did you.   Wake up and smell the coffee
this guy in dangerous and so is hillary

Read a good book this weekend, the new one from Rush Limbaugh on stopping Obama

recommend it heartily

Everyone should be talking this move up in church and synagogue this weekend and organizing letter and calls to their representatives and the white house

[Robert]

As much as I may not agree with Obama its not Him that started it Bush is actually the author of this. Basically Bush gave away US soverinty awhile ago I will try to find more articles on this. but these are 2 that explain what is happening. At the time I didnt know what the ramifications would be but I guess we are starting to see it. I cannot believe the courts are going along with this even if its the 9th.



Obama 'clones' Bush in killing sovereignty
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109347

CNN- Lou Dobbs Outs Those Involved in N. American Union	powered by Aeva

Lets see the Feds are destroying the US dollar and the courts are now attacking our sovereignty. And Congress sits there like a bunch of morons doing absoultly nothing about it. Again this mimicks San Fran when the people voted on prop 8 then went to the courts and overturned the peoples decisions. The Govenor, Mayor or Att general non did what they were supposed to do and protect what the people voted for. Now Brown was elected what a crock. They should be in jail for violating public oath of office.

[donaldcc]

Read a good book this weekend, the new one from Rush Limbaugh on stopping Obama

recommend it heartily

  When you use "good" and "Limbaugh" in the same sentence, is that an "oxymoron" ?  I think I had better just take a long ride this weekend, more relaxing. 

[Serk]

Read a good book this weekend, the new one from Rush Limbaugh on stopping Obama

recommend it heartily

  When you use "good" and "Limbaugh" in the same sentence, is that an "oxymoron" ?  I think I had better just take a long ride this weekend, more relaxing. 

Dunno if it's an oxymoron, but it's an "Oxy" something...   Contin maybe?

(I've actually come to see the wisdom of Mr. Limbaugh, but the twist on wordplay was too easy to not take advantage of...)

[Oss]

yep the play on words was pretty funny but Rush has come a long way from days when he was full of himself,  now he is humble AND full of himself

[Bobbo]

CAN YOU FRIGGEN BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!????????? WHAT THE HE77 IS WRONG WITH OUR GOV.!!!???

You should do more research rather than depend on Fox News talking head blowhards for your information.  Do some quick research on “friend of the court” briefs and their importance in deciding a case.  You might find that Fox commentators are making a mountain out of a molehill…

 

[Westernbiker]

The FACT of the matter is this:

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.
 
I'm upset that they even allowed this. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING!

[Oss]

(sarcasm font on)

and you believe these countries are our friends?


and do you believe the 9th will ask the feds to treat the illegals the way those countries treat their illegals?

[Bobbo]

The FACT of the matter is this:

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.
 
I'm upset that they even allowed this. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING!

A friend of the court brief is simply unsolicited information from an interested party not involved in a suit.  Latin American countries may be affected by the ruling in this case, so they are allowed to file this type of brief.

Let me make a parallel case:

Say California decided to outlaw motorcycles that had foreign names.  The AMA and others would most likely file suit challenging the law.  This law only involves California, but affects other states, people, and foreign manufactures.  Would you want Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, BMW, Ducati, Triumph, and other manufacturers to be banned from filing friend of the court briefs?  They have an interest in the outcome of this lawsuit, and should be allowed to file the brief.

The courts can include or reject any information in these briefs.  The linked video muddles this fact, and makes it seem like the other countries have joined the suit.

[G-Man]

So, by enforcing OUR immigration laws and protecting OUR borders and citizens from all of the evils of illegal immigration, we could affect those other countries?



Who gives a rats a$$ ??


And the courts allowing them to add anyhting to this case is an absotule smack in the face of the American citizens.

[czuch]

Time to start worring about what WE think about other countries and not really giving a good heckuva dayum about what they think of US!!

[Trynt]

The FACT of the matter is this:

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.
 
I'm upset that they even allowed this. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING!

They are searching for any pretense to justify a decision that will prevent Arizona from enforcing laws that effectively deal with illegal immigration. Since 60-70 percent (depending upon the poll) of American citizens support Arizona's law, the administration needs to provide itself with political cover. They are making efforts to do this by finding support among those foreign counties that contribute its' citizens to the problem. They can then claim that those supporting the law are: a. racists, b. misinformed, C. unenlightened, or D. they should have used shorter words when they explained their point of view.   It's sort of like the mean girl in junior high gathering like minded peers to support her bad behavior.

[Westernbiker]

Damn right these other countries have an interest in the outcome of this.    They will no longer be able to AS EASILY get there drugs and ILLEGAL persons over the border!!!!!!!! 

[Bobbo]

So, by enforcing OUR immigration laws and protecting OUR borders and citizens from all of the evils of illegal immigration, we could affect those other countries?



Who gives a rats a$$ ??


And the courts allowing them to add anyhting to this case is an absotule smack in the face of the American citizens.

The new law gives specific powers to the police that can infringe on legal citizens rights.  That is the main reason the DOJ is challenging the statute.  Hispanic looking people here legally from those other countries could also be harassed and jailed for no other reason other than looking Hispanic.

[Trynt]

So, by enforcing OUR immigration laws and protecting OUR borders and citizens from all of the evils of illegal immigration, we could affect those other countries?



Who gives a rats a$$ ??


And the courts allowing them to add anyhting to this case is an absotule smack in the face of the American citizens.

The new law gives specific powers to the police that can infringe on legal citizens rights.  That is the main reason the DOJ is challenging the statute.  Hispanic looking people here legally from those other countries could also be harassed and jailed for no other reason other than looking Hispanic.

Please delineate these "specific powers" that infringe on legal citizens rights.

Actually the law was specifically designed to mirror the federal law and in some instances, is even less stringent. The DOJ's main LEGAL argument contends that the State of Arizona is intruding into an area which is the domain of the Federal government.  That in effect Arizona has no constitutional right to enforce immigration policy and furthermore allowing Arizona's law to stand could lead to a patchwork of state laws.  It DOES NOT argue the law "infringes on legal citizens rights", it tangentially contends that it could lead to harassment and detention of those that cannot provide proof of citizenship (ie. drivers license, visa, or passport. Individuals cannot be stopped without probable cause unrelated to citizenship). Which as lame as their diverting critical resources and losing citizen cooperation with the police argument.  They are just throwing it against the wall and hoping something sticks.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html

[Oss]

correct Trynt  i have read the law and thats what it says and does

the right of states to be secure in their borders predates the constitution and is in fact one of the reasons the 2nd amendment (not the only reason) was so welcomed so long ago

[GOOSE]

you-all seem to be losing the point here.  don't keep passing all of these new laws/amendments/etc.  just build a nice 5-story temperature controlled reinforced bunker spaced out at 1000 yard intervals.  man each one with 2 snipers, and wala problem over.   

[Willow]

  i have read the law

Oss, it sounds like you're one up on at least one person in this discussion.    

[Jeff K]

correct Trynt  i have read the law and thats what it says and does

the right of states to be secure in their borders predates the constitution and is in fact one of the reasons the 2nd amendment (not the only reason) was so welcomed so long ago

[sarcasm font] I haven't read the law, but EVERYONE knows that it specifically says "police MUST profile and detain EVERYONE that even remotely looks Hispanic" This is common knowledge, how can anyone be so naive? [/sarcasm font]

   

[Bobbo]

If any of you had been paying attention (or have longer attention spans) you would realize this topic was already discussed at length on this forum:


http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,19094.msg163268.html#msg163268

[Oss]

well some things are worth reading more than once, for instance the bible, the constitution, birthday cards,

here is the law as it went from committee to the governor

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

we can all judge it after we read it otherwise we are all blind men on different ends of the elephant describing only what we feel not what we have seen

this is the full law  which starts on page 2

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

[Bobbo]

  i have read the law

Oss, it sounds like you're one up on at least one person in this discussion.    

If you are insinuating that I haven’t read the law, I can guarantee you that not only have I read it, I understand it and it’s not so obvious implications.  Can YOU say the same?

[Bobbo]

well some things are worth reading more than once, for instance the bible, the constitution, birthday cards,

here is the law as it went from committee to the governor

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

we can all judge it after we read it otherwise we are all blind men on different ends of the elephant describing only what we feel not what we have seen

Please pay careful attention to paragraph 5 of the Enforcement section.

PS: This is only the fact sheet from the Senate Research.  Not the actual bill.

[Oss]

You are referring to the committee notes,

    Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

would you please read article 8 of the law itself   The operative words are   LAWFUL CONTACT on line 20

this is part of it
A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE
18 ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT
19 PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.


I will say no law is perfect, but as an attempt  to preserve itself Arizona IMHO has done a bang up job on this one. To be sure it will be amended as brighter constitutional minds than mine tweak it to make it Obama proof  I make no pretense to being the brightest lightbulb in the pack but I endeavor to persevere like Arizona . I look forward to watching my friend Westernbiker buying a seized impounded and auctioned pick up truck for pennies on the dollar once the fed lawsuit is over.  Yes if you are transporting illegal aliens and get caught your truck does not get deported it gets sold
regards

Oss

[f6john]

  i have read the law

Oss, it sounds like you're one up on at least one person in this discussion.    

If you are insinuating that I haven’t read the law, I can guarantee you that not only have I read it, I understand it and it’s not so obvious implications.  Can YOU say the same?

      Bobbo.
      Sometime, at your own convenience, could you compile a list of subjects about which you know absolutely nothing? I know it would be a short list but I would find it very enlightening.  TIA.

[Bobbo]

You are referring to the committee notes,

Your link...

   Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

would you please read article 8 of the law itself   The operative words are   LAWFUL CONTACT on line 20

this is part of it
A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE
18 ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT
19 PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.


I will say no law is perfect, but as an attempt  to preserve itself Arizona IMHO has done a bang up job on this one. To be sure it will be amended as brighter constitutional minds than mine tweak it to make it Obama proof  I make no pretense to being the brightest lightbulb in the pack but I endeavor to persevere like Arizona . I look forward to watching Westernbiker buying a seized impounded and auctioned pick up truck for pennies on the dollar once the fed lawsuit is over.  Yes if you are transporting illegal aliens and get caught your truck does not get deported it gets sold
regards

Oss

“Lawful contact” is not defined in this bill, but is generally defined as contact that is not contrary to law.  This can be as simple as a cop walking up to say “hi”.  This sort of generalization is what causes legal challenges like the one it has now.

[Bobbo]

  i have read the law

Oss, it sounds like you're one up on at least one person in this discussion.    

If you are insinuating that I haven’t read the law, I can guarantee you that not only have I read it, I understand it and it’s not so obvious implications.  Can YOU say the same?

      Bobbo.
      Sometime, at your own convenience, could you compile a list of subjects about which you know absolutely nothing? I know it would be a short list but I would find it very enlightening.  TIA.

Sure.  I know nothing about the reason you feel compelled to post asinine comments without contributing to the discussion.  Feel better?

 

[Oss]

so if a person is arrested he or she can challenge the constitutionality of the stop


It is how a law is supposed to be challenged  get yourself arrested and fight it out in court That is what should be happening not the preemptive nuclear strike lawsuit launched by the US

This is how hearings like Mapp and Miranda got their names from the name of the defendant who won

but for the feds to jump the gun and for POTUS to ridicule Arizona in public and laugh is disgusting





by the way if the illegal has a driver license from any of the 50 states it looks like he walks under the law\  the illegal driving without the license is screwed and its about time

[f6john]

  i have read the law

Oss, it sounds like you're one up on at least one person in this discussion.    

If you are insinuating that I haven’t read the law, I can guarantee you that not only have I read it, I understand it and it’s not so obvious implications.  Can YOU say the same?

      Bobbo.
      Sometime, at your own convenience, could you compile a list of subjects about which you know absolutely nothing? I know it would be a short list but I would find it very enlightening.  TIA.

Sure.  I know nothing about the reason you feel compelled to post asinine comments without contributing to the discussion.  Feel better?

 

    I feel great and I got the exact response I expected and I won 5 bucks in the process. I didn't want to start a hole thread about what you know absolutely nothing about so I highjacked this thread. Apologies to all members following the original dicussion.

[Sludge]

you-all seem to be losing the point here.  don't keep passing all of these new laws/amendments/etc.  just build a nice 5-story temperature controlled reinforced bunker spaced out at 1000 yard intervals.  man each one with 2 snipers, and wala problem over.   

Im with Goose. 

I dont think we need to pay snipers though.  Hell, there are plenty of qualified folks out there who will volunteer to do the job for free.  I for one can shut down a mile of the border by myself (half mile in either direction) and more if I were forced.  Im in favor of ethical kills though.  Not one for much suffering.

I would want a spotter to keep me company though. After the first few rounds go down range, I believe there wouldnt be many customers after that, and it would become a fairly boring job. 

[Bobbo]

so if a person is arrested he or she can challenge the constitutionality of the stop

You will need to consult a constitutional attorney to get an answer to that one.

It is how a law is supposed to be challenged  get yourself arrested and fight it out in court That is what should be happening not the preemptive nuclear strike lawsuit launched by the US

This is how hearings like Mapp and Miranda got their names from the name of the defendant who won

but for the feds to jump the gun and for POTUS to ridicule Arizona in public and laugh is disgusting





by the way if the illegal has a driver license from any of the 50 states it looks like he walks under the law\  the illegal driving without the license is screwed and its about time

For the sake of discussion, say a state decided to forbid ownership of firearms.  Are you suggesting that the law should pass, and then get challenged only after many people are arrested, jailed, and had firearms confiscated?  New bills need to be scrutinized BEFORE they become law, to weed out problems and keep police and government intrusions to a minimum.
If they become law, they are still open to challenge, especially on constitutional freedom infringements.

[RoadKill]

All Bobbo is saying is that just because the law was enacted for the safety of Americans and to protect our tax dollars from being given away to people not contributing to the pool,it is not perfect and should be abolished untill he finds the PERFECT balance determined by semantics that suit his beliefs.    

[Bobbo]

you-all seem to be losing the point here.  don't keep passing all of these new laws/amendments/etc.  just build a nice 5-story temperature controlled reinforced bunker spaced out at 1000 yard intervals.  man each one with 2 snipers, and wala problem over.   

Im with Goose. 

I dont think we need to pay snipers though.  Hell, there are plenty of qualified folks out there who will volunteer to do the job for free.  I for one can shut down a mile of the border by myself (half mile in either direction) and more if I were forced.  Im in favor of ethical kills though.  Not one for much suffering.

I would want a spotter to keep me company though. After the first few rounds go down range, I believe there wouldnt be many customers after that, and it would become a fairly boring job. 

Tell me how you will feel after murdering a dozen children?  Or, will you simply kill the adults and let the kids die of starvation while staying with the dead parents bodies?  I realize this is a flippant part of the thread, but you should at least think things through before posting.

[Bobbo]

All Bobbo is saying is that just because the law was enacted for the safety of Americans and to protect our tax dollars from being given away to people not contributing to the pool,it is not perfect and should be abolished untill he finds the PERFECT balance determined by semantics that suit his beliefs.    

Let’s see…  What was that old quote?  “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety…”

[RoadKill]

What essential liberties were given up?  The liberty to walk around with out ID ?

[Bobbo]

The essential liberty of being free from government harassment just because an officer believes you are illegal.

[RoadKill]

The essential liberty of being free from government harassment just because an officer believes you are illegal.

The essential liberty of not having an officer speak to you and ask for valid identification?  Where the (expletive) have you EVER had that liberty?

[Oss]

last year I was pulled over by an officer because I sounded my horn to avoid being killed on my bike The officer was illegally blocking traffic and  he followed me and pulled me over
giving me a ticket for eyewear of all things,

It was an illegal stop

I fought the ticket

I won

I am a white man

So if I am a hispanic or black or muslim in a robe is it any less an unlawful stop or more of one?

If I had no license I could be pulled in same with the new law  

That is what the courts are for  To rule on these laws once passed and challenged by those who were charged under the law  checks and balances  not to use an executive created post to abort a duly enacted state law

Do I carry ID?  yes to get in the court, to drive, to get a library book

Obama tried to do an abortion on the law and mark my words down here he will now be a one term president because of it and not because of the health care initiative  I will take that 5 buck bet john if you want in

[RoadKill]

The essential liberty of being free from government harassment just because an officer believes you are illegal.

Ever had to show your ID to a Gov't official?  If so,why were they "profiling " you? AND why did you not sue for violation of your civil rights ?