Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: More judges who do not understand out rights and the 4th amendment

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    earth's crust

    More judges who do not understand out rights and the 4th amendment

    Suppression motion. Court decided that 4th amendment is irrelevant basically.

    Certainly if no RAS is there, no ID can be required. Anything after the start of the unlawful detention is void per our natural rights and 4th amendment rights.

    The motion should have been heard on its merits. Not that in this case the defendant would have won but for other cases where RAS/PC is one cannot motion to suppress evidence obtained after the unlawful detention.

    I don't subscribe to the idea that a citizen must accept a kidnapping by the .govs and then argue about it later. Our natural rights prevail. I would never find anyone guilty of resisting or other charge in a case where the .gov had no RAS or PC or warrant etc.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-03-2016 at 01:50 PM.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Oh! My! Effing! God!!

    What a tortured, twisted, destructive court opinion.

    They don't even bother to explain how the appellant's legal question is an attempt to litigate the case in pre-trial hearings--they simply declare it!!! No explanation of their rationale. No explanation of their logic. Nothing more than a distorted inference leading to their "conclusion".

    Extensive case law holds--I mean extensive--that a seizure must be justified at inception. The whole point of this is to say that police cannot retroactively justify an unjustified seizure of the person. For example, it would be rational idiocy for a cop to say, "Hey! I found weed on him. That justified seizing him." Just because the cop found weed on the guy after detaining him in no justifies seizing him in the first place before the cop knew he had weed. Extensive--and I do mean extensive--case law makes it very clear that a seizure must be justified from the very beginning.

    But, not in the case in the OP. Suddenly, the Texas courts can go way, way off on a tangent and evaluate whether a person is "trying to litigate the main question of the case in the pre-trial hearing". According to this Texas court, if a defendant can in any way be found "trying to litigate the main question of the case" in a pre-trial hearing, then no Texas court has to rule on whether the seizure was legally justified from the outset. Hey! Lets just switch the question! If we can find another question upon which the we can engineer a losing decision for the appellant, let's address that question, rather than the question actually presented. Shhhh. This is all legal tactics. (whisper) Don't even consider the Fourth Amendment. No, no, no. We won't ignore the question presented to the court in order to preserve the Fourth Amendment, for example if both the prosecution and defense presented requests the direct answer to which would harm the Fourth Amendment. No, no, no. We're not even going to do that. But, (shhhhhh), we're willing to ignore the Fourth Amendment--what's left of it--in order to find against the defendant.
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    earth's crust
    The court is basically saying that a proper seizure is an element of this (and presumably all) infraction. It is not.

    No element of any offense that I recall has a proper seizure as part of its required elements for a conviction.

    I think these judges must have suffered concussions recently and forgotten all the law that they learned before. Hillary judges is what I call them now.

    If this goes to the supreme court and SCOTUS agrees with these idiot Hillary judges then all heck is going to break loose IMO.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Just so i understand the decision---- if the detainment of a person is legal then for those sitting next to that one at a place where they arelegal to be the demand of id from anyone near them for no other reason but proximity is legal.

    You don't need to know what kind of device or tool was used to send this
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 09-04-2016 at 08:45 PM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    White Oak Plantation
    ...stopped the vehicle in which Gonzalez was a passenger.
    Officer Rodriguez testified that Gonzalez said she was “Cindy Garcia.” After failing to locate “Cindy Garcia” in the “system,” Officer Rodriguez placed Gonzalez in the police unit until they could positively identify her.
    Gonzalez was charged with two counts of failure to identify...
    Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
    (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
    (1) lawfully arrested the person;
    (2) lawfully detained the person; or
    (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. ...
    The good citizens of Texas can remedy this if they so choose...and it appears that they do not wish to.
    "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

Posting Permissions

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