This sort of crap is why I've been suggesting making citizen's arrests as a protest tactic for years now.
Police can't be sued most of the time. Getting an injunction doesn't do much either, since what's the penalty for violating it when the courts are so reluctant to even enforce perjury laws against police?
But there is one shining bright line that the courts have drawn, that they will not allow ANYONE to cross for any reason: No one is allowed to decide their own case. No one is allowed to resist arrest with violence no matter how firmly convinced they are that it is an illegal arrest. A false arrest is the ONLY violent felony you are not allowed to defend yourself against.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a cop's response to being told he's under arrest is to, at best, laugh it off. More likely, he'll go directly to violently resisting it. If someone lays hands on him to prevent him from fleeing from the arrest, he'll start violently resisting arrest. Because cops believe citizens are below them, that citizens have no authority over them. Ever.
But the law is very clear. And the courts are extremely bloody-minded about this point of law. They cannot ignore a lawful arrest and they cannot LET anyone ignore a lawful arrest.
When police are being arrested en masse for the rights violation felonies they are so used to committing that they don't even realize they are committing crimes, the courts will have a choice - apply the law just as they are required to, or prove to everyone in the world, once and for all, that the system is so hopelessly corrupt that the only justice possible comes from the barrel of a gun.
The 14th amendment prohibits creating a less privileged class of citizen. The due process rights of police and other officials have been set so high through qualified immunity, that it has created a VERY large less privileged class of citizen.
Because they are lying about knowing what is on the phones. You're right that they wouldn't need the phone files if they actually were telling the truth.
Legally speaking, nothing prevents a judge from being arrested in his own court room, and issuing an unconstitutional order is a misdemeanor under federal law - which becomes a felony as soon as anyone tries to enforce the illegal order.
Given that the US Supreme Court has ruled that such language is constitutionally-protected speech and expression, if anyone is engaging in sedition against the government it's the police officers who are directly violating the rulings of the highest court!
Demand the removal? Making a public, credible statement of policy to commit a federal felony constitutes probable cause that the speaker intends to carry out that policy.
Georgia has a citizen's arrest statute, and federal citizen's arrests are lawful in that state.
Antifa claims to be against fascism, but they are one of the most fascist groups active in the USA right now. Aside from the fact they wear black instead of brown, they are indistinguishable in their tactics from Nazi brown-shirts of 1920s Germany.
Section 230 doesn't grant special legal immunities to social media companies.
Suppose I were to spray paint a message that violates some law or other on the front of your house where it's publicly visible. Logic says that I'd be responsible for that act of vandalism, and any crime represented by the message would be committed by me.
Before Section 230, if you were to go and wash off the paint, you'd become liable for the message because you exercised editorial control over it, even though it was put there on your property without your permission.
With Section 230, you'd be immune to being sued for the message, while I'd remain liable because I'm the one who wrote it.
With FOSTA enacted, all I'd need to do to make you legally a sex trafficker for civil lawsuit purposes is to write "For a good time call Jenny at 867-5309" on your house.
And now they want to make it even easier to sue someone for their house being vandalized.
Re: Re: It would be easier to just revoke the citizenship of com
The problem with revoking corporate personhood is that corporations are owned by people and made of people and employ people.
The owner of a corporation has just as much right to speak as a poor homeless person on the street. The owner of a corporation has just as much right to use his resources to express his opinions as a middle class white collar worker or a lower class retail worker.
The Democrat and Republican parties are both corporations. If the law that was struck down by the Citizens United decision had been decided the other way, all political parties (not just Democrats and Republicans) would have become illegal organizations that would have to disband or face massive fines, possibly even prison time for all of their members who defied the law.
The same goes for other groups - the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, JPFO and even Black Lives Matter would have to shut down all operations within a few weeks of any election or become criminal organizations.
Re: It would be easier to just revoke the citizenship of compani
The problem with that is that both the Democrat and Republican political parties are companies. So are both the ACLU and NRA. The NAACP is a company. So are most labor unions.
The Supreme Court had a choice to make, and could really only rule one of two ways without abandoning every scrap of first amendment case law they had ever produced. Either apply the existing law to every company - which would destroy every political group in the county - or rule that companies are made of people and owned by people and that those people have the right to expend their resources to express themselves.
Police supporters claim that police can't do their jobs without being able to ignore certain laws, so they aren't punished for doing things regular citizens would be.
The thing is, that law I cited is impossible for a private citizen to violate - ONLY government officials can violate it. If government officials are exempted from it, then it becomes absolutely meaningless since it would apply to no one at all.
Doctor Bronner's liquid castile and Kirk's Castile bar soap are both unscented and undyed. I have dye and perfume allergies myself (though apparently not as severe as yours) and I love both brands.
An arrest without probable cause is a federal crime in itself
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
All aggressive war is terrorism - after all, the difference between 9/11 and a drone strike is that the drone keeps flying after blowing people up. The purpose of both is the same - to change the political behavior of those who survive.
A teacher who gets caught red-handed committing felonies will usually be fired long before the case makes its way through the court.
A public official - which public includes school teachers and administrators - commits a felony when they conspire to use their official authority to violate the rights of any citizen.
Why then, does this particular felony get a pass from the school board, where other felonies - both violent and not - result in suspension or even termination of employment?
On the post: Portland Journalists Ask For Sanctions As Federal Agents Continue To Assault Reporters And Legal Observers
Re: '... make me.'
This sort of crap is why I've been suggesting making citizen's arrests as a protest tactic for years now.
Police can't be sued most of the time. Getting an injunction doesn't do much either, since what's the penalty for violating it when the courts are so reluctant to even enforce perjury laws against police?
But there is one shining bright line that the courts have drawn, that they will not allow ANYONE to cross for any reason: No one is allowed to decide their own case. No one is allowed to resist arrest with violence no matter how firmly convinced they are that it is an illegal arrest. A false arrest is the ONLY violent felony you are not allowed to defend yourself against.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a cop's response to being told he's under arrest is to, at best, laugh it off. More likely, he'll go directly to violently resisting it. If someone lays hands on him to prevent him from fleeing from the arrest, he'll start violently resisting arrest. Because cops believe citizens are below them, that citizens have no authority over them. Ever.
But the law is very clear. And the courts are extremely bloody-minded about this point of law. They cannot ignore a lawful arrest and they cannot LET anyone ignore a lawful arrest.
When police are being arrested en masse for the rights violation felonies they are so used to committing that they don't even realize they are committing crimes, the courts will have a choice - apply the law just as they are required to, or prove to everyone in the world, once and for all, that the system is so hopelessly corrupt that the only justice possible comes from the barrel of a gun.
On the post: When It Comes To Qualified Immunity, Where Your Rights Were Violated Matters More Than The Fact Your Rights Were Violated
Re: A different bar for cops versus everyone else
The 14th amendment prohibits creating a less privileged class of citizen. The due process rights of police and other officials have been set so high through qualified immunity, that it has created a VERY large less privileged class of citizen.
On the post: Tone Deaf Facebook To Cripple VR Headsets Unless You Link It To Your Facebook Account
Re: Because fuck Facebook
This. I've been strongly considering buying a VR system lately. I guess I know what brand I won't be buying!
On the post: New Jersey Supreme Court Says 'Forgone Conclusion' Trumps Fifth Amendment In Crooked Cop Case
Re:
Because they are lying about knowing what is on the phones. You're right that they wouldn't need the phone files if they actually were telling the truth.
On the post: Court Says First Amendment Protects Ex-Wife's Right To Publicly Discuss Her Ex-Husband On Her Personal Blog
Re:
Legally speaking, nothing prevents a judge from being arrested in his own court room, and issuing an unconstitutional order is a misdemeanor under federal law - which becomes a felony as soon as anyone tries to enforce the illegal order.
On the post: Court Says First Amendment Protects Ex-Wife's Right To Publicly Discuss Her Ex-Husband On Her Personal Blog
Re:
That's because a state court lacks the authority to interpret the federal constitution, but federal courts do have that authority.
On the post: Judge Forbids Facebook Users Being Sued By A Cop From Publishing The Cop's Name On Social Media
The okay sign being a white supremacy gesture is a 4chan hoax.
On the post: San Diego Police Officers Are Using An Old Sedition Law To Punish People For Swearing Around Cops
Re:
Given that the US Supreme Court has ruled that such language is constitutionally-protected speech and expression, if anyone is engaging in sedition against the government it's the police officers who are directly violating the rulings of the highest court!
On the post: Georgia School District Inadvertently Begins Teaching Lessons In First Amendment Protections After Viral Photo
Re: All the students should be posting images
Demand the removal? Making a public, credible statement of policy to commit a federal felony constitutes probable cause that the speaker intends to carry out that policy.
Georgia has a citizen's arrest statute, and federal citizen's arrests are lawful in that state.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section
https://law.justia.com/codes/g eorgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/
On the post: The First Amendment Bars Regulating Political Neutrality, Even Via Section 230
Re: You had me until...
Antifa claims to be against fascism, but they are one of the most fascist groups active in the USA right now. Aside from the fact they wear black instead of brown, they are indistinguishable in their tactics from Nazi brown-shirts of 1920s Germany.
On the post: The First Amendment Bars Regulating Political Neutrality, Even Via Section 230
Re: Menu Choices
Section 230 doesn't grant special legal immunities to social media companies.
Suppose I were to spray paint a message that violates some law or other on the front of your house where it's publicly visible. Logic says that I'd be responsible for that act of vandalism, and any crime represented by the message would be committed by me.
Before Section 230, if you were to go and wash off the paint, you'd become liable for the message because you exercised editorial control over it, even though it was put there on your property without your permission.
With Section 230, you'd be immune to being sued for the message, while I'd remain liable because I'm the one who wrote it.
With FOSTA enacted, all I'd need to do to make you legally a sex trafficker for civil lawsuit purposes is to write "For a good time call Jenny at 867-5309" on your house.
And now they want to make it even easier to sue someone for their house being vandalized.
On the post: The First Amendment Bars Regulating Political Neutrality, Even Via Section 230
Re: Re: It would be easier to just revoke the citizenship of com
The problem with revoking corporate personhood is that corporations are owned by people and made of people and employ people.
The owner of a corporation has just as much right to speak as a poor homeless person on the street. The owner of a corporation has just as much right to use his resources to express his opinions as a middle class white collar worker or a lower class retail worker.
The Democrat and Republican parties are both corporations. If the law that was struck down by the Citizens United decision had been decided the other way, all political parties (not just Democrats and Republicans) would have become illegal organizations that would have to disband or face massive fines, possibly even prison time for all of their members who defied the law.
The same goes for other groups - the ACLU, NAACP, NRA, JPFO and even Black Lives Matter would have to shut down all operations within a few weeks of any election or become criminal organizations.
On the post: The First Amendment Bars Regulating Political Neutrality, Even Via Section 230
Re: It would be easier to just revoke the citizenship of compani
The problem with that is that both the Democrat and Republican political parties are companies. So are both the ACLU and NRA. The NAACP is a company. So are most labor unions.
The Supreme Court had a choice to make, and could really only rule one of two ways without abandoning every scrap of first amendment case law they had ever produced. Either apply the existing law to every company - which would destroy every political group in the county - or rule that companies are made of people and owned by people and that those people have the right to expend their resources to express themselves.
On the post: Japan's Top Court Says 45 Million Twitter Users Must Check That Anything They Retweet Is Not A Copyright Infringement
Does the flower image appear in court filings?
If so, then officers of the court could be liable under their own ruling if someone were to repost the image with the attribution cropped out.
On the post: DHS Goes Full Gestapo In Response To Ongoing Protests In Oregon
Re: Written laws
Police supporters claim that police can't do their jobs without being able to ignore certain laws, so they aren't punished for doing things regular citizens would be.
The thing is, that law I cited is impossible for a private citizen to violate - ONLY government officials can violate it. If government officials are exempted from it, then it becomes absolutely meaningless since it would apply to no one at all.
On the post: Woman Who Refused To Wear Mask At Starbucks Wants Half The $100k In Tip Money Barista Got From GoFundMe Campaign
Re: Re:
Doctor Bronner's liquid castile and Kirk's Castile bar soap are both unscented and undyed. I have dye and perfume allergies myself (though apparently not as severe as yours) and I love both brands.
On the post: Woman Who Refused To Wear Mask At Starbucks Wants Half The $100k In Tip Money Barista Got From GoFundMe Campaign
Re:
I don't know if you're reading this, but it is possible to get hand sanitizer gel without any perfumes or dyes. This, for example:
https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Guys-HYG10316-SeventyGel-Fluid_Ounces/dp/B087HNFCZF/
On the post: DHS Goes Full Gestapo In Response To Ongoing Protests In Oregon
An arrest without probable cause is a federal crime in itself
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
On the post: The Trump Administration Has Given The CIA Free Rein To Engage In A Cyberwar
Re:
All aggressive war is terrorism - after all, the difference between 9/11 and a drone strike is that the drone keeps flying after blowing people up. The purpose of both is the same - to change the political behavior of those who survive.
On the post: Third Circuit Court Of Appeals: Fuck Cheer, Indeed
Re:
A teacher who gets caught red-handed committing felonies will usually be fired long before the case makes its way through the court.
A public official - which public includes school teachers and administrators - commits a felony when they conspire to use their official authority to violate the rights of any citizen.
Why then, does this particular felony get a pass from the school board, where other felonies - both violent and not - result in suspension or even termination of employment?
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
Next >>