Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: 4A is Officially Extinct

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101

    4A is Officially Extinct

    WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court bolstered police powers on Monday, ruling that evidence of a crime in some cases may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...cmp=latestnews
    Pay your parking tickets ASAP.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,529
    From the opinion:
    One of those visitors was respondent Edward Strieff. Officer Fackrell observed Strieff exit the house and walk toward a nearby convenience store. In the store’s parking lot, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff, identified himself, and asked Strieff what he was doing at the residence.

    As part of the stop, Officer Fackrell requested Strieff ’s identification, and Strieff produced his Utah identificationcard. Officer Fackrell relayed Strieff ’s information to a police dispatcher, who reported that Strieff had an out*standing arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell then arrested Strieff pursuant to that warrant.When Officer Fackrell searched Strieff incident to the arrest, he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
    Detained - not meaning a Terry stop.

    Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:
    The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. See Epp, Pulled Over, at 5. The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 438 (1991).
    Strieff could have turned around and walked away, but he didn't.

    Sotomayor made clear that the 4th. Amendment is dead. I agree.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    From the opinion:

    Detained - not meaning a Terry stop.

    Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:

    Strieff could have turned around and walked away, but he didn't.

    Sotomayor made clear that the 4th. Amendment is dead. I agree.
    I say it is only dead if you let it die.

    you are left with several ways to enforce it despite his "good faith"

    he could have asked if he was being detained, at which point if the officer replied no, he could have said, then I do not consent to this encounter. and walked away, at which point the officer would have been forced to act in bad faith to pursue, and we wouldn't be reading this.

    EDUCATE THOSE AROUND YOU, let them know that most stops by LEO's require them engaging in conversation back to make the encounter consentual. they can deny this consent by stating such denial.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    Second, because he lacked confirmation that Strieff was a short-term visitor, Officer Fackrell should have asked Strieff whether he would speak with him, instead of demanding that Strieff do so.
    Detained? Could've walked away? No, Strieff was siezed under the 4A (that don't exist anymore).

    A person is "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if, "‘in view of all [of] the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.’" United States v. Gray, 883 F.2d 320, 322 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.

    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/115084.p.pdf
    Shrieff is guilty of not knowing the case law that permits him to walk away. The cop is guilty of demanding not asking. But, these five anti-liberty anti-c0nstitution judges don't give a rip and desire only that the state be more able to violate our individual liberty.

    Now that the 4A is gone the other four of the top five are next.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    LOL. On one hand OCDO habitués make clear their despite of teachers and education, while with their cack-hand they prate "EDUCATE THOSE AROUND YOU."
    thanks.. apparently I am the whole of OCDO...

    I do not like common core education, it is a sad and pathetic system so as to not "hurt feewings" however there are some really good teachers out there who have been given a crap hand dealt them through this system that they have to comply with to stay employed.

    even worse is the text books. for example, it wasn't until I was older I realized Lincoln started the civil war at the expense of state sovereignty and the right of the people to institute a new government, and that it wasn't for slavery, that was just a side effect. I also didn't know he was actually rascist.

    but I digress.

    however education does exist in plenty of history books and law books for review, and if you want your rights reinforced and not tramped on at every opportunity presented thanks to some dolt. you might want to educate the people around you through friends, relatives ETC, on how stops are sometimes consentual encounters and they can find out by asking if they are detained.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    I say it is only dead if you let it die.

    you are left with several ways to enforce it despite his "good faith"

    he could have asked if he was being detained, at which point if the officer replied no, he could have said, then I do not consent to this encounter. and walked away, at which point the officer would have been forced to act in bad faith to pursue, and we wouldn't be reading this.

    EDUCATE THOSE AROUND YOU, let them know that most stops by LEO's require them engaging in conversation back to make the encounter consentual. they can deny this consent by stating such denial.
    Disagree. Do not ask, simply state that you do not consent to the encounter and then turn and walk away. Let us know what happens.

    The court acknowledged that the cop demanded ID, not asked for ID, which implies to a reasonable citizen that he would not be free to go.

    In Missouri Strieff would have been under arrest. http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/statht...tml?&me=arrest
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    I am not inclined to train/educate cops on how not to violate the law. A "consensual encounter" is a construct of the courts at the begging of the cops. Do you always consent to be contacted by a cop.
    consent: to agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be done
    ...consensual...pfft!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Disagree. Do not ask, simply state that you do not consent to the encounter and then turn and walk away. Let us know what happens.

    The court acknowledged that the cop demanded ID, not asked for ID, which implies to a reasonable citizen that he would not be free to go.

    In Missouri Strieff would have been under arrest. http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/statht...tml?&me=arrest
    I disagree with this, if you are being detained you can ask why, this places the ball in the officers court to explain his "articulable suspicion" if he replies "because i'm a police officer" or something to similar effect you can then say "okay, with all due respect officer, this detainment is, in my opinion, unlawful and i'm going to have to request my/a lawyer be present, either in person or via speakerphone on my/a cell phone, any questions asked or requests can be directed through them. "

    of course I also have the number to a lawyer on my cell ... soooooooo
    Last edited by Ezek; 06-21-2016 at 09:27 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    I disagree with this, if you are being detained you can ask why, this places the ball in the officers court to explain his "articulable suspicion" if he replies "because i'm a police officer" or something to similar effect you can then say "okay, with all due respect officer, this detainment is, in my opinion, unlawful and i'm going to have to request my/a lawyer be present, either in person or via speakerphone on my/a cell phone, any questions asked or requests can be directed through them. "

    of course I also have the number to a lawyer on my cell ... soooooooo
    Ezek, as has stated numerous times by lay and kind legal folk ~ KYBMShut...

    if you engage you are encouraging and engaging the 'friendly' conversation with the nice LE..."not sure what happened, we were having a friendly conversation and EZEK immediately then demanded an attorney be present so i brought them in for further questioning to see what was going on'....

    may i help you officer...am i free to go? repeat until yes is given to the last part of the mantra...

    ipse
    "He who pays the piper calls the tunes..." (OBE as Grape called melody!!)

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    Ezek, as has stated numerous times by lay and kind legal folk ~ KYBMShut...

    if you engage you are encouraging and engaging the 'friendly' conversation with the nice LE..."not sure what happened, we were having a friendly conversation and EZEK immediately then demanded an attorney be present so i brought them in for further questioning to see what was going on'....

    may i help you officer...am i free to go? repeat until yes is given to the last part of the mantra...

    ipse
    you can record said conversation, mo is a one party state.

    and yeah, like some officer is going to just give a yes here, you're more likely to just be arrested, probably opn grounds of failure to follow a "lawful order".

    after requesting lawyer, you invoke your 5th and say nothing. record the conversation as well this way he can't duck out and say it was a "friendly" conversation and you suddenly requested your lawyer.

    you may even have your cell out and video record the non consentual encounter. so as to show the degredation of the officer professionalism in a court of law.


    I guess I am overcomplicating the dialogue, it would be simpler to ask if detained, if yes, say I don't answer questions without legal counsel and then only ask if your free to go... repeatedly. record encounter from initiation of course if you can.
    Last edited by Ezek; 06-21-2016 at 10:47 AM.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    From the link URL above . So let's not hate on the liberal Justices.
    This is a good point, and why a balanced court helps. It's just so damn frustrating when the civil-rights champions go completely against their own principles on one basic thing. And yes, you can absolutely hate them when they so obviously get it wrong on extremely vital rights, even though they merely do their job on cases like this one.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  12. #12
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    435

    Confused ?

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1373_83i7.pdf

    Did the detective "demand" or "request" ID?

    If you provide ID upon "request" is it considered consensual?

    Was the stop unlawful or not? If it was a lawful stop then why argue the exception technicality?

    ~Whitney



    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH

    No. 14–1373. Argued February 22, 2016—Decided June 20, 2016

    Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house.He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed.

    Last edited by Grapeshot; 06-21-2016 at 01:20 PM. Reason: rule #19
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    From the link URL above . So let's not hate on the liberal Justices.
    A broken clock still needs fixing even when it's right.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    LOL. On one hand OCDO habitués make clear their despite of teachers and education, while with their cack-hand they prate "EDUCATE THOSE AROUND YOU."
    I don't know why anyone would conflate members of the leftist educational trade unions and the leftist-controlled "education" establishment (aka government/union or "public" schools) with actual education?

    Indeed, I hold union drones and the schools they control in contempt precisely because they are supposed to be providing education and yet utterly fail to do so. Instead the engage in left-wing indoctrination using such programs as No Child Left Behind, Common Core, Discovery Math, and so on. History is presented not as a roadmap of where we came from or cause and effect, but rather as isolated vignettes with no connection to each other nor to today, except to show that our nation is incurably racist, broken, and evil, fixable only through the exercise of ever greater amounts of federal power.

    I don't expect the mailman or checkout clerk at the supermarket to provide much education. But the educational union members demand ever more of my tax money on the promise of providing education and then fail to deliver.

    Today's union members with teaching degrees are a disgrace to the actual teachers and educators of my youth. These men and women had degrees in the fields they intended to teach--math, history, English--and then obtained teaching certificates. They knew their material. And then they learned how to teach it to others. I never heard the word "pedagogy" from such educators. They focused on the actual material they were teaching. Today, method trumps material. And whereas my teachers all understood that teaching was a part time gig that required a second income to support a family at a middle-class level, today's union members expect to earn 12 months of income for 9 months of work. Worse than that, far too many of them have never left school. K through 12, then to college, then back to K to 12 to teach. My teachers had real world experience working the family farm or ranch, or doing construction, or even providing educational services to businesses in the off season.

    I hold the typical union member educational degreed government school employee in contempt precisely BECAUSE I so value education and they so often utterly fail to deliver the service they purport to provide.

    Charles

  15. #15
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Thanks, Grape, for the edit.

    Since we are in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm from cops, is not a cop's approach to conversation reasonably assault, at least the tort if not the crime?
    Do you mean the approach to conversation can be regarded as tort because it is essentially infringement upon the citizens rights ?
    If so, that is an interesting analysis I have never considered.
    Where there is no probable cause the approach to conversation is willful, or wrongful assault?

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    I disagree with this, if you are being detained you can ask why, this places the ball in the officers court to explain his "articulable suspicion" if he replies "because i'm a police officer" or something to similar effect you can then say "okay, with all due respect officer, this detainment is, in my opinion, unlawful and i'm going to have to request my/a lawyer be present, either in person or via speakerphone on my/a cell phone, any questions asked or requests can be directed through them. "

    of course I also have the number to a lawyer on my cell ... soooooooo
    Decline the encounter from the get-go and the ball is in the officer's court. If you are not free to go the cop will make such a statement and, under RSMo, you are under arrest. My recording will have my denial to engage and not another word from me will be heard on the recording.

    Soooooooo...you are certainly free to engage the cop in verbal jitsu....
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    Do you mean the approach to conversation can be regarded as tort because it is essentially infringement upon the citizens rights ?
    If so, that is an interesting analysis I have never considered.
    Where there is no probable cause the approach to conversation is willful, or wrongful assault?

    ~Whitney
    Anyone, including a cop, can ask you anything. Your response is the key. I prefer to decline the encounter and go about my business. The cop has then a very important decision to make.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    I disagree with this, if you are being detained you can ask why, this places the ball in the officers court to explain his "articulable suspicion" if he replies "because i'm a police officer" or something to similar effect you can then say "okay, with all due respect officer, this detainment is, in my opinion, unlawful and i'm going to have to request my/a lawyer be present, either in person or via speakerphone on my/a cell phone, any questions asked or requests can be directed through them. "

    of course I also have the number to a lawyer on my cell ... soooooooo
    I don't know about that. I've seen references to maybe two states which require a cop to state his basis for a detention to the detainee if the detainee asks for it. Otherwise, after years of paying attention to this point, I know of nothing that requires a cop to answer.

    Spearately, why wait for the cop to give an answer that suggests an illegal detention before requesting a lawyer? For illustrative purposes, I would ask, are you not going to request a lawyer if the cop gives you a genuine reasonable basis to detain you?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I don't know about that. I've seen references to maybe two states which require a cop to state his basis for a detention to the detainee if the detainee asks for it. Otherwise, after years of paying attention to this point, I know of nothing that requires a cop to answer.

    Spearately, why wait for the cop to give an answer that suggests an illegal detention before requesting a lawyer? For illustrative purposes, I would ask, are you not going to request a lawyer if the cop gives you a genuine reasonable basis to detain you?
    Unfortunately, my determination of what is reasonable will likely be far different than the cop's. And, unfortunately again, it will take a member of the judges guild to bless me with is propensity...if it exists.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Disagree. Do not ask, simply state that you do not consent to the encounter and then turn and walk away. Let us know what happens.

    The court acknowledged that the cop demanded ID, not asked for ID, which implies to a reasonable citizen that he would not be free to go.

    In Missouri Strieff would have been under arrest. http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/statht...tml?&me=arrest
    Or be proactive...file no contact orders with LEO depts. notifying them that you do not consent to any contact from LEOs of the agency.

    Then when they contact you they are assaulting you (unless they have RAS or PC or warrant).

    I have filed them and they howl when they read them....but none have violated them. They know what would happen. Not good things for them.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Or be proactive...file no contact orders with LEO depts. notifying them that you do not consent to any contact from LEOs of the agency.

    Then when they contact you they are assaulting you (unless they have RAS or PC or warrant).

    I have filed them and they howl when they read them....but none have violated them. They know what would happen. Not good things for them.
    Please cite the form, or forms, required in CT that would notify cops that they are restrained from contacting you.

    If no cite to the proper form(s) you are spreading fertilizer...again. Also, ya got any video/audio of cops howling after you "served" them notice?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I don't know about that. I've seen references to maybe two states which require a cop to state his basis for a detention to the detainee if the detainee asks for it. Otherwise, after years of paying attention to this point, I know of nothing that requires a cop to answer.

    Spearately, why wait for the cop to give an answer that suggests an illegal detention before requesting a lawyer? For illustrative purposes, I would ask, are you not going to request a lawyer if the cop gives you a genuine reasonable basis to detain you?
    good point, and solidly made.

    again I gues I was overcomplicating it.

    you are right most don't "have" to answer you, but most will. some won't. either way you announce you don't answer questions without legal counsel. and if you can get why you where detained out of the cop and the video shows that to be complete and utter BS.. well.. you have a rights violation, and/or harassment. this question also does NOT implicate you in anyway or provide any use against you in a courtroom IMO, since the officers report will of course already mention why.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Please cite the form, or forms, required in CT that would notify cops that they are restrained from contacting you.

    If no cite to the proper form(s) you are spreading fertilizer...again. Also, ya got any video/audio of cops howling after you "served" them notice?
    "proper form"? You must work in a gov't office where bureaucracy rules your day with forms and form numbers. Cite a statue that says a form is required? Because you create the document and you have it served upon the department in accordance with the service requirements of papers.

    And maybe I do have audio/video ...share with you if I do? PASS

    You keep on telling folks that I spread fertilizer but I keep winning in court ! See attached jpg .. state admits being naughty ... I have other claims pending too which will also likely be admitted to....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture free speech claim acknowldged.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	109.1 KB 
ID:	13151  

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,101
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    "proper form"? You must work in a gov't office where bureaucracy rules your day with forms and form numbers. Cite a statue that says a form is required? Because you create the document and you have it served upon the department in accordance with the service requirements of papers.

    And maybe I do have audio/video ...share with you if I do? PASS

    You keep on telling folks that I spread fertilizer but I keep winning in court ! See attached jpg .. state admits being naughty ... I have other claims pending too which will also likely be admitted to....
    There is a form that is to be used in CT to inform a citizen, even a government employee citizen, that they are restrained from contacting you. Produce a copy of the form you served the cops. No form you are spreading fertilizer.

    I suspect that you have not one video of cops howling...as you have asserted.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    From the link URL above . So let's not hate on the liberal Justices.
    they are good for certain things lol
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •