Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Deborah Davis

Via Drudge: Someone who refused to show her ID -- her website and some public comments.

* * *

We'll have to watch this one. There was another case of Nevada's Hiibel who went all the way to supreme court, but lost.

ACLU press release.

Maybe things will change after Bush's trial.

Just think, they'll be making collector's magazines for the Bush Gestapo-years.

* * *

Looks like someone is making some websites.

* * *

You can get an idea of how exhaustive this process may be -- look at the DoJ documents in another case.

* * *

The key will be to watch how the issues are framed. Here are some sample cases which DoJ will say do/do not apply in order to justify "whatever they want":

386 F.3d 116 [Huminski, decided Oct 2004, 2d Court of Appeals] -- People have the right to show placards, and that bumper stickers are a clearly established right.

Carey: Arrest for refusing to show ID, absent probable cause, violated 4th Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search.

. . .[W]hen reviewing a Ninth Circuit decision that included this holding, the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide whether arrest for refusing to give one’s name to the police violates the Fourth Amendment. Kolender v.Lawson,461 U.S.352,361 n.10 (1983).Ref

KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983): Statute leaves too much discretion to law enforcement to decide whether someone has or has not met the requirements for an arrest in re lack of identification.

* * *

  • What happens in America, despite clearly established rights, if you exercise your rights?

  • What happens if someone doesn't like your viewpoints, and you are forced to show an ID?

    In America, you get arrested or manhandled and told to leave.

    * * *

    It is our view that people have the right to travel without fear that, in situations where they are not reasonably required to show ID, they are not required to produce that ID.

    It remains a matter of law for the court to decide:

  • Was there a reasonable link between the request for the ID and the proximity to the facility

    We believe that, given one is traveling in a public vehicle that they are essentially free to come and go as they like.

    We fail to see that the Federal Building, because of its proximity to the lines, would logically extent its jurisdiction beyond federal property. Such a conclusion, if affirmed, would ask that anyone traveling down a road, however far from a federal building, could be "related" to that Federal building and be subject to search.

    It is our view that it is more likely than not the "reasonable conclusion" would be to find that the Federal Authorities overstepped their authority and did not reasonably permit someone who was unrelated to criminal activity to travel without interference.

    However, we remain open to hear what the court may find as a matter of law. Our sense is this case could very well go to the Supreme Court. This looks like another situation of DoJ and the White House exerting apparently infinite leverage on a civilian, all for the purpose of making a point.

    Yes, it appears as though the United States citizens are being treated no better than their Iraqi counterparts who just happen to be near someone who is related to Federal Authority.

    Thus, we conclude that, more likely than not, to avoid costly litigation, DoJ will likely have concurred with a CIA-DoD decision to move American civilians to Eastern Europe for "extra attention" and "avoid public trials." [See Archive for other examples -- Archive ]

    * * *

    Is that a place you want to visit or live?

    That's not the "land of the free" -- it's the land of the arrogant Americans who want to keep insulated from reality; and deny those who "have other views" from reviewing information.

    This is 1984, Goerge Orwell, Animal Farm.

    * * *

    Haminskii case: Reporter had to take court action to get access to Haminskii case.

    * * *

    It's all well and good to say, "Hay, we have a judicial system." Small problem -- it's a major hassle, waste of time, and a real annoyance to know that simply by asserting your rights to be "left alone" one is subject to arrest.

    You can call it America -- but call it what it is -- Fascism in America.

    DoJ-DHS dreaming up more "legal arguments" to justify going along with things.

    The Declaration of Independence was based on one of the major annoyances against the British Redcoats -- they were interfering with daily life.

    No wonder the Iraqis are happy to see America leave.

    Bored American soldiers, will they wreak havoc on Americans stateside? They already are.