-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Fellow CA UOCer arrested.
- Thread starter ryanburbridge
- Start date
Publius
Regular Member
Save Our State
Regular Member
Right at the outset, the officer told them it couldn't be attached
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
In my perfect world a single police officer would have showed up and if there was in fact a law against hanging the sign then the two subjects would have received a $22 ticket in the mail. No arrests.
I mean seriously, we are arresting people for hanging signs ? Does this sound reasonable to reasonable people ?
I mean seriously, we are arresting people for hanging signs ? Does this sound reasonable to reasonable people ?
Publius
Regular Member
Since I am working on the transcript today for youtube, here is the begining.
---------------------------------
>>Off1: What’s going? What’s the sign say?
>>B: The sign actually says “Taxes” and then “equal sign” and then “theft”
>>Off1: Okay. Well you can’t hang it from the overpass that’s the only issue
>>B: Oh there’s a law that says I can’t hold a sign?
>>Off1: Well I’m saying that they don’t want it on there. You’ll have to ask the CHP.
>>B: I’m just wondering if there’s a law.
>>Off1: I don’t know if there’s a law.
>>B: Cause if there is –
>>Off1: As long as you guys aren’t hurting anything.
>>B: Ya, I mean
>>R: We’re just standing here.
>>Off1: As long as you guys aren’t defacing property I don’t have a problem with it. I’m just saying, CHP might come by and tell you to move along cause you are on state property.
>>B: Well if they come here and they tell us that we can’t have it-
---------------------------------
From there it becomes about the officer demanding things he doesn't have a legal right to have and us asserting our rights.
The Officer didn't know about PC 602 (f) until after we had been arrested.
Publius
Regular Member
Better yet, had we been told at any time it was illegal to have a sign there held by some over hand knots while we stood next to it, we would have untied it and held it instead, but not one Officer told us to take it down.
Publius
Regular Member
Ah, ty.
Yeah Weare PD has issues and has repeatedly violated the rights of people who record them in public, sometimes months after the fact.
http://freeconcord.wordpress.com/20...ted-by-weare-pd-on-illegal-recording-warrant/
ryanburbridge
Regular Member
Update!
http://www.copblock.org/4803/update-on-brothers-arrested-for-hanging-sign/
Update on Brothers Arrested for Hanging Sign
By Benjamin Bartholomew
On Tuesday, May 24, we appeared in court as ordered for an arraignment. We brought with us a lawyer, and a dozen or more supporters, some of whom were individuals we had never met before. In order for us to all be easily seen as a group, we all wore 3-inch buttons bearing the image Guy Fawkes and our group’s name “Good Men Do Something”, which were made for us by Robert, another member of our Group. We didn’t bring in cameras, as our petition to do so was denied since we didn’t know our case number, something we weren’t given until the day of the arraignment.
http://www.copblock.org/4803/update-on-brothers-arrested-for-hanging-sign/
Update on Brothers Arrested for Hanging Sign
By Benjamin Bartholomew
On Tuesday, May 24, we appeared in court as ordered for an arraignment. We brought with us a lawyer, and a dozen or more supporters, some of whom were individuals we had never met before. In order for us to all be easily seen as a group, we all wore 3-inch buttons bearing the image Guy Fawkes and our group’s name “Good Men Do Something”, which were made for us by Robert, another member of our Group. We didn’t bring in cameras, as our petition to do so was denied since we didn’t know our case number, something we weren’t given until the day of the arraignment.
Sons of Liberty
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Well, that's some good news. That PC 185 charge was bogus from the start! Good luck with the 602(f) charge!
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
With all the effort they have put in with death threats, unlawful seizures, questionable slayings, false arrests and fabricated evidence, the cops themselves are doing a great job of driving the wedge deeper into the schism.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Something I haven't seen discussed in this thread is the CA requirement to ID oneself.
IF a LEO has RAS of a crime (& depending on the state definition, I doubt what's described in this incident is a crime),
THEN s/he can detain you,
and in most states can ask you to ID yourself.
In most states, that ID can be verbal "I'm Jane Citizen & I live in Rightsville".
Very few that I'm aware of require one to show a gov't-issued photo ID.
NO state requires citizens to carry gov't issued photo ID.
So if you don't have it, you can't show it, what are the cops gonna do even if you do commit a crime?
PLUS plus also and (to quote one of my favorite TV characters)...
We have the right to remain silent.
We have the right NOT to talk with police.
Remaining silent is not a crime, so one could not be arrested for it.
There's even case law supporting that.
The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller v. U.S. , 230 F 2d 486. 489
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.
Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
Selective prosecution when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution.
County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97−0642.
IF a LEO has RAS of a crime (& depending on the state definition, I doubt what's described in this incident is a crime),
THEN s/he can detain you,
and in most states can ask you to ID yourself.
In most states, that ID can be verbal "I'm Jane Citizen & I live in Rightsville".
Very few that I'm aware of require one to show a gov't-issued photo ID.
NO state requires citizens to carry gov't issued photo ID.
So if you don't have it, you can't show it, what are the cops gonna do even if you do commit a crime?
PLUS plus also and (to quote one of my favorite TV characters)...
We have the right to remain silent.
We have the right NOT to talk with police.
Remaining silent is not a crime, so one could not be arrested for it.
There's even case law supporting that.
The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller v. U.S. , 230 F 2d 486. 489
No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.
Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).
Selective prosecution when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution.
County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97−0642.
Last edited:
Yard Sale
Regular Member
Bulldozed by the Hiibel decision.
Gundude
Regular Member
Correct me if I'm wrong. Hibel was in Nevada state court. Has no bearing in Calif.
They need PC or RAS here for an ID.
They need PC or RAS here for an ID.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
I have no problem with anyone making a statement, but I do think the mask were a little "over the top". Im fine with everything else, but come on. I wouldn't have worn a mask.
Yard Sale said:
Except in Hiibel the SCOTUS said states could enact stop and identify statutes if an officer has RAS that a crime has been or is going to be committed. California has no such statute.
Hiibel would have bearing in CA if CA had a stop and identify statute, but since it doesn't it currently doesn't apply. Also Hiibel says PC or RAS is needed for an ID even if a state does have a stop and identify statute.
Hey Bigtoe,
Thank you for your post. Most people think that Hiibel allows Nevada LEO to literally "stop and ID." The SCOTUS ruling stated that LEO must have RAS for a detainment, before they "stop and ID."
Hiibel is binding on all 50 states and all US territories.
When a DA writes a memo to LEO that Hiibel allows for an almost unlimited "stop and ID," one must wonder about the abilities of the lawyer who wrote it, and for his ability to read plain english (I am referring to Rutledge of the LA DA office).
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Los_Angeles_DA-2008-22_Carrying_Guns.pdf
Thanks for stating the obvious in such a clear and concise way.
markm
Last edited:
Gunslinger
Regular Member
What BS! They drop the one charge that they couldn't prove in a million years and keep the chicken **** one that is a violation and would probably have a $50 fine. Spend thousands of the taxpayers dollars so some ******* DA and the half wit cops in the gulag can justify their existence. Any judge with half a brain would toss it immediately. Only the cesspool PDR--west of the Mississippi River, would do this kind of garbage to its subjects. I can't wait for the big one to hit Kalifornia and wash the shithole 3rd world concentration camp into the Pacific. Good luck anyway.
wrightme
Regular Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
So, unless some new existing statute is valid in CA, there isn't even an onus to Identify in California, is there?
Exactly right. You have to be in violation of a law to be required to provide ID is my understanding.