| Author | Post |
|---|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 02:51 am |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: stuckinchico wrote: Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine
I would report the theft - have them take a report so you can document it thoroughly. Then report it to internal affairs and the local DA. You may also wish to talk to your local news media. There's obviously some coverup occurring.
Which will reflect all the worse on the police since no complaint or lawsuit has yet been filed.
|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 06:47 am |
|
Not that it matters, but the judge in my case agrees that any detention further than the few moments it takes an officer to conduct the "e" check is unlawful detention. No running of serials and no wants and warrants check.
People v. DeLong (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 786, 792-793 [90 Cal.Rptr. 193]
Is the case that rules 12031 constitutional. They claim that an (e) check is not a search, but an examination with a singular purpose and scope.
I like how they also said "legislation which is passed "with an evil eye and an unequal hand" (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373 [30 L.Ed. 220, 227, 6 S.Ct. 1064]), the legislative purpose being discriminatory enforcement, must be struck down. But there is not a shred of evidence in the record before us that the statutes in question have been enforced unequally."
I wonder if that might be our avenue of attack. . . The legislature specifically intended to avoid discriminatory language and then instead used discriminatory jurisdiction...
Last edited on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 07:44 am by Theseus
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 11:59 am |
|
Theseus wrote: Not that it matters, but the judge in my case agrees that any detention further than the few moments it takes an officer to conduct the "e" check is unlawful detention. No running of serials and no wants and warrants check.
Off topic a bit, but how did you discover the judge's opinion? Did I miss an update on your case? If there is an update, can you post/link it on this forum? (Haven't been to CGN in a couple weeks...)
|
TatankaGap
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24th, 2009 03:37 pm |
|
pullnshoot25 wrote: marshaul wrote: pullnshoot25 wrote:
marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
I think that we actually need to assert that the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right here first. That takes incorporation...
What's wrong with Nordyke?
Nothing at all, except that it is under en banc review and as such is not binding case law.
Correction: Nordyke is the binding law of the land unless and until the 9th Cir votes to take it en banc - as of now they have only asked for briefing and are voting on it now - the vote won't be done until mid-July so as of now, Nordyke is the law. However, if en banc is voted and approved, the Nordyke ruling (re: incorporation) will be suspended pending the en banc hearing -
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King
On May 18, 2009 an anonymous judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called for briefing from both sides on whether the case should go en banc. Based upon Ninth Circuit General Orders, the en banc vote should be final July 13, 2009.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 09:27 am |
|
Correction: Nordyke is the binding law of the land unless and until the 9th Cir votes to take it en banc - as of now they have only asked for briefing and are voting on it now - the vote won't be done until mid-July so as of now, Nordyke is the law. However, if en banc is voted and approved, the Nordyke ruling (re: incorporation) will be suspended pending the en banc hearing -
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King
On May 18, 2009 an anonymous judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called for briefing from both sides on whether the case should go en banc. Based upon Ninth Circuit General Orders, the en banc vote should be final July 13, 2009.
Thats absolutely GOOD NEw my arraignment ( should they choose to proceed) is on july 17
|
KylaGWolf
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Diego, USA |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
Nordyke is not binding till they rule on the En Banc.
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 09:53 pm |
|
KylaGWolf wrote:
Nordyke is not binding till they rule on the En Banc.
This is certainly not my understanding. Perhaps you can share more than mere blind assertion?
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1607 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:05 am |
|
KylaGWolf wrote: Nordyke is not binding till they rule on the En Banc.
Nordyke is good law now. But it WILL we withdrawn IF the circuit votes to have an En Banc hearing.
artwork by oleg volk:
Attached Image (viewed 289 times):
|
KS_to_CA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 03:31 pm |
|
On May 18, 2009 an anonymous judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called for briefing from both sides on whether the case should go en banc. Based upon Ninth Circuit General Orders, the en banc vote should be final July 13, 2009.
And for what purpose does the anonymous judge from the 9th circuit rise and call an en banc desicion on the Nordyke?
|
stephenruckle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 01:29 am |
|
smoking357 wrote: cato wrote: I would not and we have not encouraged members here to disobey orders (even unlawful ones) given by officers attempting to detain UOCers. That is not good strategy IMO.
In California, the smartest thing to do is to disobey the cobecause of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFNDK8PQGNw
I assume you meant "cops", and so I have to disagree. You should obey, and deal with any mistakes they made later, in court.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:14 am |
|
Yea we just throw the fourth out the window , sort it out later. 
|
stephenruckle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:22 am |
|
sudden valley gunner wrote: Yea we just throw the fourth out the window , sort it out later.
The Fourth Amendment describes our rights against unreasonable search, seizure, and warrants without probable cause. Nowhere in my post did I say we should "throw it out the window".
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:26 am |
|
Post was meant in sarcasm.
Everybody can do what ever they want.
Personally I feel complying with unlawful orders is throwing your 4th and other rights out the window. There is very valid reasons why we should do our best to resist these. People have complied for too long and now the police expect it, and they have the gall to make you feel like you are the crook for not wanting to be harrassed by them.
|
stephenruckle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:40 am |
|
sudden valley gunner wrote:...Personally I feel complying with unlawful orders is throwing your 4th and other rights out the window....
I disagree, because you can comply and file your complaint later. Either way ends up with you exercising your rights. One is more beneficial to our cause than the other.
...There is very valid reasons why we should do our best to resist these...
I agree, we should do our best to resist. I, however, think that we should do it in a forum that increases our chances of success in permanently abolishing objectionable police behavior.
...People have complied for too long and now the police expect it...
Yes. I agree. But just imagine their surprise when we are no longer arguing our rights on the spot and start winning in court. Complete with favorable case law.
...and they have the gall to make you feel like you are the crook for not wanting to be harrassed by them.
Who cares. Do you? Because I don't care what police think of me. Nobody should, in my opinion.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 05:34 am |
|
Have you ever been on the business end of harrassment? I have and trust me you do care about looking and feeling like a crook when they are handcuffing you and berating you in public veiw. Plus the viewing us as crooks promotes the us vs. them attitude. I don't want to see that. I have respect for all LEO's that do their job within their legal limits.
And no you have given up your rights and contrary to your belief it is not reversed in court. With an encounter with LEO once you comply, you have relinquished that right.
We should not have to argue our rights in courts.....that is ridiculous. The only thing we should argue is when we don't comply to unlawful orders and our rights are trampled by the authorities.
You can comply all you want, I am saddened that a fellow American won't stand up and are intimidated by unlawful LEO, I will not unless it is under duress.
|
KylaGWolf
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Diego, USA |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 09:40 pm |
|
sudden valley gunner wrote: Have you ever been on the business end of harrassment? I have and trust me you do care about looking and feeling like a crook when they are handcuffing you and berating you in public veiw. Plus the viewing us as crooks promotes the us vs. them attitude. I don't want to see that. I have respect for all LEO's that do their job within their legal limits.
And no you have given up your rights and contrary to your belief it is not reversed in court. With an encounter with LEO once you comply, you have relinquished that right.
We should not have to argue our rights in courts.....that is ridiculous. The only thing we should argue is when we don't comply to unlawful orders and our rights are trampled by the authorities.
You can comply all you want, I am saddened that a fellow American won't stand up and are intimidated by unlawful LEO, I will not unless it is under duress.
Yes I have been on he receiving end of it. Although I didn't end up arrested it was close and YES my 4A rights were violated in multiple areas along with three other peoples. Yes it sucks to have to fight for our rights but until the laws are changed which are only going to change is if we fight them and fight them in court or manage to get representatives with brains that can think for themselves and not what the Brady Bunch and other anti's tell them.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 02:02 pm |
|
| Don't get me wrong I am not talking about being antagonistic. I am talking about Unlawful orders, when we voluntarily give up our rights, I.D. searches etc, you can't then fight those in court. The courts won't do nothing you gave them up willingly at the seen. And in the end it doesn't help you even if you are totally innocent. I know from experience.
|
KylaGWolf
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Diego, USA |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 01:45 am |
|
No worries I didn't take any offense 
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 01:58 am |
|
But here is the Golden Question: Is 6 Officers with guns pointed at You a LAWFUL order?
No , hey we are here to see if your are unloaded.... Just straight get your black A** on the ground..... In my mind that is NOT a Lawful order.... But hey I just had an attorney agree with me that the US Supreme Court does out trump CAL APPS so this trial should be edge of your seat mud slinging ... ( sorry dont know how else to describe it) Yes i will file a motion to suppress all evidence arguing Terry V Ohio If that works.... Well Ill be dipped ... Im prayin that the DA say hey those officers messed up and doesnt file But..... In my life i dont tend to get the lucky breaks sooooo Im polishing up my Combat boots getting ready to strap them on tight and get if we can get some curb stomping going on
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 02:35 am |
|
stuckinchico wrote: But here is the Golden Question: Is 6 Officers with guns pointed at You a LAWFUL order?
No , hey we are here to see if your are unloaded.... Just straight get your black A** on the ground..... In my mind that is NOT a Lawful order.... But hey I just had an attorney agree with me that the US Supreme Court does out trump CAL APPS so this trial should be edge of your seat mud slinging ... ( sorry dont know how else to describe it) Yes i will file a motion to suppress all evidence arguing Terry V Ohio If that works.... Well Ill be dipped ... Im prayin that the DA say hey those officers messed up and doesnt file But..... In my life i dont tend to get the lucky breaks sooooo Im polishing up my Combat boots getting ready to strap them on tight and get if we can get some curb stomping going on
No that definately is complying under duress, if you hadn't done anything wrong it is an unlawful order but a demand that I would comply with too!!!! Then I would keep my mouth shut and not say another word to them. If you are willing to fight this I wish you the best of luck. Those officers were way above the call of duty if you hadn't done anything wrong that is. (disclamer....LOL)
|
Current time is 11:49 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
