|
US
Vs UK - In the United Kingdom, Colonel Childers would be more likely to
be convicted of murder, based on the flawed testimony of several
witnesses, and a total lack of exonerating evidence. In the case of the British
Bulldog, in exactly the same way, the State saw to it that the
evidence needed to defend, was never provided to the defence. In the UK,
the state controls the crime scene and Legal Aid does not (did not)
extend to obtaining independent forensic medical evidence. Barrister
Julian Dale, and Solicitor Timothy Stirmey confirmed that to the
defendant. Later, barristers in England went on strike because Legal Aid
fees were so low, they were unable to defend their clients. The King (or
Queen) as Head of State, is responsible for ensuring that their subjects
are treated fairly, with a government that provides an effective
administration. We think this true story will show it to be anything but
the case in a Britain that is seriously in debt, hence, looking to save
money by denying those accused of serious crimes, with a viable defence.
That is aside from the corruption in local government, and collusion by
Wealden and Sussex police, working with the CPS to rig the deck.
'Enemy of the State' is a 1998
American political action thriller film directed by
Tony
Scott, written by David Marconi, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and starring
Will Smith and Gene Hackman with an ensemble supporting cast consisting of Jon Voight, Lisa Bonet, Gabriel Byrne, Dan Butler, Loren Dean, Jack Black, Jake Busey, Barry Pepper, Scott Caan, Jason Lee, Tom Sizemore, Seth Green, and Regina King. The film tells the story of a group of corrupt National Security Agency (NSA) agents conspiring to kill a congressman and the cover-up that ensues after a tape of the
murder ends up in the possession of an unsuspecting lawyer.
There
are striking similarities between this movie, and the actions of Ian
Kay, and Trevor
Scott, in the cover up of Wealden
District Council's crimes, though, not stooping to murder in 'Enemy of the
State.' But there are similar character assassination attempts to that of Sussex
police,
in seeking to cover up their failure to investigate the crimes reported
to them in 1997, 2000, 2002, and even in 2023. Yet, still no
whistleblower has come forward to tell of the conspiracy. The
planning inspectorate are saying there is no effective remedy, and King
Charles is (allegedly) remaining aloof, as did his mother, Queen
Elizabeth, in confirming she would not be intervening to cut the cancer
from the society they preside over, as Royal
Heads of State.
Enemy of the State was released on November 20, 1998, by Buena Vista Pictures through its
Touchstone Pictures label. The film grossed $250.8 million worldwide, and received generally positive reviews from film critics, with many praising the writing and direction as well as the chemistry between Smith and Hackman.
PLOT
Senior NSA Assistant Director Thomas Reynolds meets in a public park with Congressman Phil Hammersley to discuss a new piece of counterterrorism legislation that dramatically expands the surveillance powers of American intelligence agencies over individuals and groups. Hammersley remains committed to blocking its passage, arguing that the potential benefits of the bill aren't worth sacrificing the privacy rights of ordinary citizens. Reynolds, wanting the bill passed to obtain a long-delayed promotion, has a team of agents loyal to him murder Hammersley and stage his death as a car accident following a heart attack.
Labor lawyer Robert Clayton Dean is working with his firm on a case involving restaurant owner and mob boss Paulie Pintero. Dean meets with his ex-girlfriend, Rachel Banks; Rachel works for "Brill", a man Dean occasionally hires to conduct surveillance operations but has never met in person. She delivers a tape incriminating Pintero for labor racketeering, which Dean threatens him with to ensure the mobster agrees to a favorable settlement.
Reynolds and his team spot a biologist swapping out a tape from a remote wildlife camera stationed across the lake from the murder scene. They identify him as Daniel Zavitz. When Zavitz views footage of the murder, he immediately contacts a journalist to publicize the tape. Reynolds' team intercepts the call and rush to Zavitz's apartment. Zavitz transfers the video to a disc and hides it in an NEC TurboExpress game console before fleeing. He bumps into Dean, his old college friend. Panicked, Zavitz slips the disc into Dean's shopping bag without his knowledge. He runs into the path of an oncoming fire truck and is killed instantly, while Reynolds has Zavitz's journalist contact murdered.
After Reynolds' team identify Dean and figure Zavitz slipped him the footage disc, they visit him disguised as cops. When Dean refuses to let them search his belongings without a warrant, the agents erroneously believe that he is knowingly withholding the disc. They break in Dean's house while he and his family are out and plant bugs on his clothes and personal effects. They also disseminate false evidence that Dean is laundering money through his firm for Pintero and having an affair with Rachel. The subterfuge destroys Dean's life: he is fired from his law firm, his bank accounts are frozen pending a federal investigation, and his wife, Carla, throws him out. Dean asks Rachel to contact Brill for help. Reynolds intercepts the call and sends one of his men to impersonate Brill. The real Brill rescues Dean and warns him that the NSA is responsible for ruining his life. After Dean manages to evade the team, he is horrified to find Rachel shot dead in her home to silence her and him framed for the murder.
Dean finds the disc and shows it to Brill, who identifies Reynolds. The NSA agents raid Brill's hideout; Brill and Dean escape but the disc is destroyed in a car fire. Brill reveals that he is really Edward Lyle, a former NSA communications expert stationed in
Iran during the Iranian Revolution. His partner, Rachel's father, was killed, but Lyle escaped and has been working covertly ever since, employing Rachel as a courier to watch over her. Lyle urges Dean to start a new life, but he insists on clearing his name. Dean and Lyle trail Congressman Sam Albert, a key supporter of the bill, and record a videotape of him with his mistress. Dean and Lyle hide an NSA listening device in Albert's hotel room, knowing that he will find it. Lyle then hacks into Reynolds' personal bank account and deposits large sums of money to make it look like he's being paid to blackmail Albert.
A meeting is arranged with Reynolds to exchange the video so Reynolds can be tricked into incriminating himself. Reynolds' men instead ambush the meeting and hold Lyle and Dean at gunpoint, demanding the tape. Dean, anticipating this, lies and says that the evidence is hidden at Pintero's restaurant, which is currently under
FBI surveillance. He then tricks Pintero and Reynolds into believing that the other man has "the tape". The encounter immediately escalates into a deadly close-quarters firefight when a gangster shoots an NSA agent in the back; Pintero, his men, Reynolds, and the agents are all killed. During this ordeal, Lyle sends the FBI a live feed of the incident to trigger a raid on the restaurant before slipping out in disguise. Dean is rescued, the survivors are arrested, and the conspiracy is exposed.
Congress abandons the bill to avoid scandal, while the NSA executes a cover-up of Reynolds' actions. Dean is cleared of all charges and reconciles with Carla. Lyle sends Dean a "farewell" message via his TV, partially showing himself relaxing on a tropical island with his
cat.
CAST
- Will Smith as Robert Clayton Dean
- Gene Hackman as Edward "Brill" Lyle
- Jon Voight as NSA Assistant Director Thomas Brian Reynolds
- Regina King as Carla Dean
- Loren Dean as NSA Agent Hicks, Reynolds' aide-de-camp
- Jake Busey as Krug, a USMC veteran and NSA field operative
- Barry Pepper as NSA Agent David Pratt
- Jason Lee as Daniel Leon Zavitz
- Gabriel Byrne as the Brill imposter who tries to kidnap Dean
- Lisa Bonet as Rachel Banks
- Jack Black as NSA Agent Fiedler, a surveillance analyst
- Jamie Kennedy as NSA Agent Jamie Williams
- Scott Caan as Jones, Hicks' partner
- James LeGros as Jerry Miller, managing partner of Dean's firm
- Stuart Wilson as Congressman Sam Albert
- Ian Hart as NSA Agent John Bingham
- Jascha Washington as Eric Dean
- Anna Gunn as Emily Reynolds
- Grant Heslov as Lenny Bloom
- Bodhi Elfman as NSA Agent Van
- Dan Butler as NSA Director Admiral Shaffer
- Jason Robards as Congressman Philip Hammersley (uncredited)
- John Capodice as Old Worker #1
- Seth Green as NSA Agent Selby (uncredited)
- Tom Sizemore as Paulie Pintero (uncredited)
- Philip Baker Hall as Mark Silverberg (uncredited)
- Brian Markinson as Brian Blake (uncredited)
- Larry King as Himself
PRODUCTION
The story is set in both Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, and most of the filming was done in Baltimore. Location shooting began on a ferry in Fell's Point. In mid-January, the company moved to Los Angeles to complete production in April 1998. David Marconi spent over 2 1/2 years developing his original script at Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer Films under the direction of Lucas Foster, their development executive at the time. Oliver Stone expressed early interest in directing Marconi's script, but ultimately Jerry Bruckheimer went with Tony Scott who he had a long standing relationship with because of their previous collaborations. The writers Aaron Sorkin, Henry Bean and Tony Gilroy each performed an uncredited rewrite of the script.
Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise were considered for the part that went to Will Smith, who took the role largely because he wanted to work with Hackman, and had previously enjoyed working with the producer Jerry Bruckheimer on Bad Boys. George Clooney was also considered for a role in the film. Sean Connery was considered for the role that went to Hackman. The film is notable for having cast several soon-to-be stars in smaller supporting roles, which casting director Victoria Thomas credited to people's interest in working with Gene Hackman.
The film's crew included a technical surveillance counter-measures consultant who also had a minor role as a spy shop merchant. Hackman had previously acted in a similar thriller about spying and surveillance, The Conversation (1974). The photo in Edward Lyle's NSA file is of Hackman in The Conversation.
CRITICS AND BOX OFFICE
Enemy of the State grossed $111.5 million in the United States and $139.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $250.8 million, against a production budget of $90 million.
The film opened at #2, behind The Rugrats Movie, grossing $20 million over its first weekend at 2,393 theaters, averaging $8,374 per venue. It made $18.1 million in its second weekend and $9.7 million in its third, finishing third place both times.
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 70% based on 84 reviews, with an average rating of 6.44/10. The website's critics consensus reads: "An entertaining, topical thriller that finds director Tony Scott on solid form and Will Smith confirming his action headliner status." Metacritic assigned the film a normalized score of 67 out of 100, based on 22 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of A− on an A+ to F scale.
Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times expressed enjoyment in the movie, noting how its "pizazz [overcame] occasional lapses in moment-to-moment plausibility". Janet Maslin of The
New York Times approved of the film's action-packed sequences, but cited how it was similar in manner to the rest of the members of "Simpson's and Bruckheimer's school of empty but sensation-packed filming. In a combination of the two's views, Edvins Beitiks of the San Francisco Examiner praised many of the movie's development aspects, but criticized the overall concept that drove the film from the
beginning - the efficiency of government intelligence - as unrealistic. Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun-Times felt "the climax edges perilously close to the ridiculous" but overall enjoyed the film, particularly Voight and Hackman's performances.
Kim Newman considered Enemy of the State a "continuation of The Conversation", the 1974 psychological thriller that starred Hackman as a paranoid, isolated surveillance expert.
IN REAL LIFE
An episode of PBS's Nova titled "Spy Factory" reported that the film's portrayal of the NSA's capabilities was fiction: although the agency can intercept transmissions, connecting the dots is difficult. However, in 2001, the then-NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden, who was appointed to the position during the release of the film, told CNN's Kyra Phillips that "I made the judgment that we couldn't survive with the popular impression of this agency being formed by the last Will Smith movie." James Risen wrote in his 2006 book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration that Hayden "was appalled" by the film's depiction of the NSA, and sought to counter it with a PR campaign on behalf of the agency.
Given the events of 9/11, the Patriot Act and Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA's PRISM surveillance program, the film has become noteworthy for being ahead of its time regarding issues of national security and privacy.
In June 2013, the NSA's PRISM and Boundless Informant programs for domestic and international surveillance were uncovered by The Guardian and The Washington Post as the result of information provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. This information revealed capabilities such as collection of Internet browsing, e-mail and telephone data of not only many Americans, but citizens of other nations as well. The Guardian's John Patterson argued that Hollywood depictions of NSA surveillance, including Enemy of the State and Echelon Conspiracy, had "softened" up the American public to "the notion that our spending habits, our location, our every movement and conversation, are visible to others whose motives we cannot know".
IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (RIP or RIPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, regulating the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications. It was introduced by the Tony Blair Labour government ostensibly to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 9 February 2000 and completed its Parliamentary passage on 26 July.
Following a public consultation and Parliamentary debate, Parliament approved new additions in December 2003, April 2005, July 2006 and February 2010. A draft bill was put before Parliament during 4 November 2015.
RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic communications. The Act:
-
enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
- enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
- enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
- enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hand over keys to protected information;
- allows certain public bodies to monitor people's Internet activities;
- prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court.
RIPA CONTROVERSY
Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there was little substantive debate in the
House of
Commons. The act has numerous critics, many of whom regard the RIPA regulations as excessive and a threat to civil liberties in the UK. Campaign group Big Brother Watch published a report in 2010 investigating the improper use of RIPA by local councils. Critics such as Keith Vaz, the chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, have expressed concern that the act is being abused for "petty and vindictive" cases. Similarly, Brian Binley,
Member of Parliament (MP) for Northampton South has urged councils to stop using the law, accusing them of acting like comic strip detective Dick Tracy.
The Trading Standards Institute has been very critical of these views, stating that the use of surveillance is critical to their success (see TSI press release Archived 3 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine).
The "deniable encryption" features in free software such as FreeOTFE, TrueCrypt and BestCrypt could be said to make the task of investigations featuring RIPA much more difficult.
Another concern is that the Act requires sufficiently large UK Internet Service Providers to install technical systems to assist law enforcement agencies with interception activity. Although this equipment must be installed at the ISPs' expense, RIPA does provide that Parliament will examine appropriate funding for ISPs if the cost burden became unfairly high.
ACCUSATION OF OPPRESSIVE USE
In April 2008, it became known that council officials in Poole put three children and their parents under surveillance, at home and in their daily movements, to check whether they lived in a particular school catchment area. Council officials carried out directed surveillance on the family a total of 21 times. Tim Martin, the council's head of legal services, had authorised the surveillance and tried to argue that it was justified under RIPA, but in a subsequent ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal – its first ever ruling – the surveillance was deemed to be unlawful. The same council put fishermen under covert surveillance to check for the illegal harvesting of cockles and clams in ways that are regulated by RIPA. David Smith, deputy commissioner at the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) stated that he was concerned about the surveillance which took place in Poole. Other councils in the UK have conducted undercover operations regulated by RIPA against dog fouling and fly-tipping. In April 2016, 12 councils said that they use unmanned aerial vehicles for "covert operations", and that such flights are covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Despite claims in the press that local councils are conducting over a thousand RIPA-based covert surveillance operations every month for petty offences such as under-age smoking and breaches of planning regulations, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners' last report shows that public bodies granted 8,477 requests for Directed Surveillance, down over 1,400 on the previous year. Less than half of those were granted by Local Authorities, and the commissioner reported that, "Generally speaking, local authorities use their powers sparingly with over half of them granting five or fewer authorisations for directed surveillance. Some sixteen per cent granted none at all."
In June 2008, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, sent out a letter to the leaders of every council in England, urging local governments not to use the new powers granted by RIPA "for trivial matters", and suggested "reviewing these powers annually by an appropriate scrutiny committee".
Especially contentious was Part III of the Act, which requires persons to (allegedly) self-incriminate by disclosing a password to government representatives. Failure to do so is a criminal offence, with a penalty of two years in jail or five years in cases involving national security or child indecency. Using the mechanism of secondary legislation, some parts of the Act required activation by a ministerial order before attaining legal force. Such orders have been made in respect of the relevant sections of Part I and Part II of the RIP Act and Part III. The latter became active in October 2007. The first case where the powers were used was against animal rights activists in November 2007.
RIPA IDENTIFICATION OF JOURNALIST'S SOURCES
n October 2014, it was revealed that RIPA had been used by UK police forces to obtain information about journalists' sources in at least two cases. These related to the so-called Plebgate inquiry and the prosecution of Chris Huhne for perversion of the course of justice. In both cases, journalists' telephone records were obtained using the powers of the act in order to identify their sources, bypassing the usual court proceedings needed to obtain such information.
The UK newspaper The Sun made an official written complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to seek a public review of the London Metropolitan Police's use of anti-terror laws to obtain the phone records of Tom Newton Dunn, its political editor, in relation to its inquiry into the "Plebgate" affair. The Sun’s complaint coincided with confirmation that the phone records of the news editor of the Mail on Sunday and one of its freelance journalists had also been obtained by Kent police force when they investigated Chris Huhne's speeding fraud.[20] Journalists' sources are usually agreed to be privileged and protected from disclosure under European laws with which the UK complies. However, by using RIPA an investigating office just needs approval from a senior officer rather than the formal approval of a court hearing. Media lawyers and press freedom groups are concerned by the use of RIPA because it happens in secret and the press have no way of knowing whether their sources have been compromised. Responding to The Sun's complaint Sir Paul Kennedy, the interception of communications commissioner, launched a full inquiry and urged Home Office ministers to accelerate the introduction of promised protections for journalists, lawyers and others who handle privileged information, including confidential helplines, from such police surveillance operations. He said: "I fully understand and share the concerns raised by the protection of journalistic sources so as to enable a free press. Today I have written to all chief constables and directed them under section 58 (1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to provide me with full details of all investigations that have used Ripa powers to acquire communications data to identify journalistic sources. My office will undertake a full inquiry into these matters and report our findings to the prime minister".
On 12 October 2014, the justice minister, Simon Hughes, confirmed on Sky News's Murnaghan programme that the UK government will reform RIPA to prevent the police using surveillance powers to discover journalists' sources. He said that the police's use of RIPA's powers had been "entirely inappropriate" and in future the authorisation of a judge would be needed for police forces to be given approval to access journalists' phone records in pursuit of a criminal investigation. The presumption would be that if a journalist was acting in the public interest, they would be protected, he added. Hughes further said that if the police made an application to a court he would assume a journalist would be informed that the authorities were seeking to access his phone records. More than 100,000 RIPA requests are made every year for access to communications data against targets including private citizens. It is not known how many have involved journalists' phones.
PROSECUTING OFFENDERS UNDER RIPA
A number of offences have been prosecuted involving the abuse of investigatory powers. Widely reported cases include the Stanford/Liddell case, the Goodman/Mulcaire Royal voicemail interception, and Operation Barbatus.
Cliff Stanford, and George Nelson Liddell pleaded guilty to offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in 2005. They were found to have intercepted emails at the company Redbus Interhouse. Stanford was sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years, and fined £20,000. It was alleged Stanford had intercepted emails between Dame Shirley Porter and John Porter (Chairman of Redbus Interhouse). In 2007,
News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman was sentenced to four months in jail for intercepting the voicemail of members of the Royal Family. His associate Glenn Mulcaire received a six-month sentence.
In 2007, Operation Barbatus exposed a sophisticated criminal surveillance business organised by corrupt police officers. A former Metropolitan Police officer, Jeremy Young, was jailed for 27 months for various offences including six counts of conspiracy to intercept communications unlawfully. A second former policeman, Scott Gelsthorpe, was sentenced to 24 months for offences including conspiracy to intercept communications unlawfully. 3 other former police officers and a private detective were also jailed for their part in running a private detective agency called Active Investigation Services.
In 2008, four people were cautioned for 'Unlawful intercepting of a postal, public or private telecommunications scheme', under S.1(1), (2) & (7). The circumstances of the offences are not known at the time of writing. Three people were tried for 'Failure to disclose key to protected information' under S.53 (of which 2 were tried). One person was tried for 'Disclosing details of Section 49 Notice' under S.54.
In August 2009 it was announced that two people had been prosecuted and convicted for refusing to provide British authorities with their encryption keys, under Part III of the Act. The first of these was sentenced to a term of 9 months' imprisonment. In a 2010 case, Oliver Drage, a 19-year-old takeaway worker being investigated as part of a police investigation into a child exploitation network, was sentenced, at Preston Crown Court, to four months imprisonment. Mr Drage was arrested in May 2009, after investigating officers searched his home near Blackpool. He had been required, under this act, to provide his 50-character encryption key but had not complied.
In a further case in 2010 Poole Borough Council was accused of spying unfairly on a family. Although the Council invoked powers under RIPA to establish whether a family fell into a certain school catchment area, when taken before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal it was found guilty of improper use of surveillance powers.
CORRUPTION ABSOLUTE
These powers are granted to police and councils who are themselves corrupt, with no checks and balances to use the same
Investigatory powers to ascertain if the police and councils are themselves corrupt, so using these statutes to cover up their own crimes. It cannot be right that any State gives their agencies the ability to break the law, to uphold the law.
And then protects them from prosecution for breaking the law. Otherwise, we end up with an Enemy of the State situation.
To any moral person, there should be another layer of (perhaps AI) to
ensure that the so-called authorities, have not been the subject of any
(civil, human rights or criminal) complaints that have not first been
investigated.
SUSTAINABILITY
& TRANSPARENCY vs SPIRALING DEBTS
As
to the matter of wasting public money, and National
Debts, if as it appears there is an army of snoopers, spying on the
public, who are suspected of breaking the law in some measure, the cost
of such operations, especially to cover up the ghost of councils past
crimes, can only escalate, as the innocents in the system fight back. At
such point the army of illegal spies (human
rights abusers) must increase year on year, to counter the
revelations that any of their victims has uncovered.
The
multiplication of efforts to cover up council and police crimes, must
then spiral up, costing the US and British taxpayers
significant sums. When it would have been far cheaper to simply admit an
error of judgment quite quickly. Instead of continuing down the path of
damnation, until finally, as in the Post Office Horizon case, it is
revealed that hundreds of innocent people have been wrongfully convicted
and imprisoned - just to cover up the wrongdoing of the State. Such
un-sustainability and lack of accountability (transparency) runs counter
to the United
Nations Sustainability
Development Goals: SDG
16, pertaining to Justice and strong institutions.
CHINA
& RUSSIA
There
is a difference in communist China
and Russia,
under Xi
Jinping and Vladimir
Putin, in that the State is still taxing their poor workers for
being spied on, but more because of dissidence. Rather than, burying
corruption from within.
The
US has a Written Constitution, meaning that if the accused had been
found guilty, he would have had a right of appeal. But, in the US,
unlike in the UK, a Jury is unlikely to convict where vital evidence is
missing. In the UK, a Judge can instruct a Jury to make of it what they
will ... In other words, go ahead and convict ....
MOVIE INFO
Django
Unchained 2012
Double
Jeopardy 1999
Enemy
of the State 1998
John
Wick 2014
Gladiator
2000
Rambo
First Blood 1982
Rules
of Engagement 2000
Sisu
2023
The
Bonfire of the Vanities 1990
The
Crown, Netflix 2013 - 2023
The
Fugitive 1993
Yes
(Prime) Minister 1980 - 1988
|