Jon Titter Arrested

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

No you didn't say it was excessive. I replied to muzzleflash who suggested that it was. Though I have to admit that I had to go back and make sure that it was he who I made that reply to rather than you. You know, that randomness question again?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Also it needs to be pointed out that for each offense you are entitled to a reasonable bail, so if someone got arrested for crime X and bailed out, then committed a new crime, and was arrested again - he is entitled to a new reasonable bail for the new crime.

If he keeps committing new crimes over and over again, he is further entitled to a new bond on each individual charge.

And being able to bring up "past crimes" in court is very limited by law, in most cases you cannot even mention their past deeds because it is thought to cloud the judgment of those attempting to determine the guilt of the current charged crime. There are a few exceptions but each State has specific laws defining how this is to be handled.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It is by definition an attempt to violate his right against excessive bail because the OP says this:

"Apparently he also had a record for "use of a minor in nudity-oriented material" so they weren't very happy about this and "will seek a high bond to keep Titter behind bars". "

So they are seeking to punish him with time before his conviction because "they weren't happy".

You simply cannot do this lawfully. This is tyranny essentially.

It boils down to this - you either give someone bail that they can afford or you deny them bail altogether based on proof that he will almost certainly hurt someone if released.

This guy is a perfect example of how the system gets abused and the Constitution is ignored, and his rights as a result become non-existent because "feelings".

Just because someone went to law school means nothing, each individual citizen needs to know how the Constitution works and what it says. This is a "Need to Know" situation.

I do concede that in reality, not only do people often not understand the Constitution, but when confronted with what it actually says and expects they reject it and will invent any emotional plea to attempt to circumvent it.

And if you allowed to me examine any random arrest in depth, I bet I could point out dozens of violations of which only 1 needs to be legitimate to erase any legitimate authority the arresting body has to prosecute them for whatever crime they might be accused of.

So in other words, the Constitution has become a pipe dream and has almost no effect on reality anymore (if it ever did to begin with which I doubt few if any ever cared what it said).

I know most people don't like it, including most judges. They simply do not like the Constitution and how it grants the citizens RIGHTS against tyrannical government oppression.

People are hell-bent on punishing others, hurting them and making them pay - before they are even convicted. And after conviction, most people think rape and beatings are a legitimate punishment in prison.

But again, the Constitution condemns all this psychopathic angry thinking and seeks to Protect Citizens.

Too bad that no one understands this and that in reality when faced with it, they will actually condemn the Constitution because they are simply not fair in judgment.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm just amazed you found a conspiracy in this.

Here's the real conspiracy:

There is a reason they do not teach children in middle and high school "Constitutional Law".
Though any reasonable person could see a huge benefit and important point to creating such a course and having all students take it and pass it. It's just as important as math or reading and writing. It's far more important and useful to society than nearly any elective course.

But when I went to school, there was no Constitutional Law course even as an elective. We had "Civics" which is the most general and broad overview of the basics (eg, how many branches of government do we have?). And mind you, Civics at my high school was an Elective - meaning you don't have to take it if you don't want to.

The reason they don't teach people anything about the Constitution is because that makes it super easy to violate it without anyone realizing it. This allows the government to attain grandiose power and hardly anyone will complain or try to stop them. They can just reach and reach and do anything they want if no one calls foul.

And if you give someone an inch what do they take? A mile.

Well not teaching anyone about the Constitution gives the government a thousand miles. I wonder what they are taking as a result? Our very lives, our Liberty. They take it all if they "feel like it". Those in power have super important "Feelings" and they absolutely override those without power's feelings.

People are so uneducated that they will assume automatically that the government knows best and is always protecting the Constitution.

They think that merely taking an oath "I will defend the Constitution" is enough. Lip service.
No one actually needs to know anything for sure or make any sense.

And what makes it even worse is that it might not even be a concerted conspiracy between masterminds - this could actually be the result of vast ignorance across the board for centuries.

Tesla and Edison brought us the modern world of technology but hardly anyone today knows how to replicate even a tenth of any of their inventions. Same goes with the Constitution, hardly anyone knows who Madison was or what he talked about in the Federalist Papers. They don't even realize he designed our government.



Yeah well the hard truth is - We Can't Keep it! We're too damn ignorant and we deserve what we get.

a reply to: muzzleflash

so your saying all lawyers are corrupt.... It's a sad world when that's still not a conspiracy, we just accept like programmed little lemmings.

a reply to: ManyMasks

a reply to: ManyMasks

a reply to: muzzleflash

"Excessive bond" is defined as any bond you cannot reasonably afford.

That is absolutely and categorically incorrect, and your own article you provided tells you exactly what the actual definition is.

Excessive bond has nothing to do with what you can afford.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: muzzleflash

"Excessive bond" is defined as any bond you cannot reasonably afford.

That is absolutely and categorically incorrect, and your own article you provided tells you exactly what the actual definition is.

Excessive bond has nothing to do with what you can afford.

I guess you didn't read, sigh...

Also I am tiring of people disagreeing without giving a reason.

a reply to: Shamrock6

First of all, 90% of people held are held illegitimately -

The judicial officer must release a defendant on personal recognizance (i.e., without a cash bond) unless that hearing shows that: “[S]uch release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.”[iv]

Yet very few people are released on O.R. at their initial hearing...

Now read further:

A defendant can be detained without bail only upon a finding that no conditions would assure his or her appearance in court and public safety. The judicial officer is prohibited from imposing a financial condition that results in detention.[vi]

That means if they cannot afford the bail - than the financial condition imposed is RESULTING IN DETENTION!!!

Why you ask?? Well the SC ruled thus:

“Th[e] traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction… Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence… would lose its meaning.”

What is the purpose of bail anyways? Is it to keep you locked up because you cannot afford to post it? Or is it a type of security deposit to ensure you'll show up because you want your money back?

The Court found that the function of bail was to balance this right with an assurance that a defendant would “stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty.”[xiv]

It held that: “Bail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is ‘excessive’ under the Eighth Amendment.”

Excessive bail results in a huge tax burden and overflowing jails - which is not only unnecessary but it is also a violation of the Constitutional provisions.

The practical considerations of leaving the excessive bail question unanswered are numerous. The first is the courts’ inability to make meaningful bond determinations. Crowded bond court dockets result in abbreviated proceedings, with most only taking minutes. Absent guidance on the excessive bail question, judges efficiently decide these cases by quickly imposing cash bonds in amounts they consider to be “customary” for the charged offense. Little consideration is given to alternatives or the defendant’s ability to pay. Consequently, many defendants held for minor offenses remain incarcerated until trial or plead guilty to be released because they cannot afford even minimum bonds.[xxiv] At the end of 2015, almost two-thirds of jail inmates were held without a conviction.[xxv]

a reply to: Shamrock6

And if you bothered doing any research at all, even 5 minutes worth, you'd find articles like this, which I found in just 1 minute doing a google search "excessive bail cannot afford":

US Justice Department says Poor Defednants Cannot be Held if they Cannot Afford Bail

Let's read along shall we??

The U.S. Justice Department said that holding defendants in jail because they can't afford to make bail is unconstitutional—the first time the government has taken such a position before a federal appeals court, reports NBC News.

On Thursday, Loretta Lynch’s DOJ filed a friend of court (amicus) brief in federal court saying that mandating inmates pay bail to be released before a trial violates their civil rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides equal protection under the law.

The brief read in part: “Bail practices that incarcerate indigent individuals before trial solely because of their inability to pay for their release violate the Fourteenth Amendment” and “result in the unnecessary incarceration of numerous individuals who are presumed innocent.”

And here's what happened:

NBC reports that the filing came in the case of Maurice Walker of Calhoun, Ga. He was kept in jail for six nights after police arrested him for being a pedestrian under the influence, a misdemeanor. Calhoun was told he could not get out of jail unless he paid the fixed bail amount of $160.

“Fixed bail schedules that allow for the pretrial release of only those who can play, without accounting for the ability to pay,” the government said, “unlawfully discriminate based on indigence.” A federal judge in January ruled in Walker’s favor, ordering the city to let those arrested on misdemeanors be released on their own recognizance.

Looks like courts all over the land have been violating people's rights and discriminating against the poor.
This is real basic stuff if anyone bothered to read the Federalist Papers...

a reply to: Shamrock6

So the article I linked did in fact say what I said it did, and the Justice Dept agrees with me.

I realize that the Sheriffs and Bondsmen hate this reality because they get tons of money via excessive bails being doled out to millions of people around the country. Especially bondsmen because they typically charge interest on the loans.

The problem here is educational, almost no one reads the law actually trying to understand it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: muzzleflash

"Excessive bond" is defined as any bond you cannot reasonably afford.

That is absolutely and categorically incorrect, and your own article you provided tells you exactly what the actual definition is.

Excessive bond has nothing to do with what you can afford.

You are welcome, because I just went out of my way to educate you personally on a major flaw in the system. I got paid nothing for it. I even doubt you'll be thankful either and I expect resentment and denial but we'll see.

I am doing the community a service here and I did not like one minute of it, and I have more important matters to attend to - unless... unless you actually read that information and are suddenly like "omg paradigm shift - we have been violating the rights of countless people and crapping on the Constitution this whole time!". If you actually are open minded and realize the error of these ways, then this effort would be worth it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

United States v. Salerno:

Then, in United States v. Salerno,21 the Court upheld application of preventive detention provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 against facial challenge under the Eighth Amendment. The function of bail, the Court explained, is limited neither to preventing flight of the defendant prior to trial nor to safeguarding a court’s role in adjudicating guilt or innocence. “[W]e reject the proposition that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interests through regulation of pretrial release.”22 Instead, “[t]he only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is that the government’s proposed conditions of release or detention not be ‘excessive’ in light of the perceived evil.”23 “[D]etention prior to trial of arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no condition of release can dispel” satisfies this requirement.24

The only measure of what is "excessive" when it comes to bail that matters is what the bail amount is for the crime which a person is accused of and how much can reasonably guarantee their appearance in court. No court is under any obligation to give you an ROR simply because you're poor.

Bail is “excessive” in violation of the Eighth Amendment when it is set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the asserted governmental interest.

Stack v Boyle.

This is like, real basic stuff if you bothered to read all of the pertinent court rulings instead of picking and choosing which information you use because it supports your contention while ignoring the information that refutes it.

You are welcome, because I just gave you a five minute schooling after you attempted to waste everybody's time by presenting your personal opinion as if it were legal fact and assert victory simply due to managing to need multiple comments to spew your opinion.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Interesting. Ive been thinking of Titor lately. With all the Russia talk and Deep State talk... Remember Titor said Russia would nuke or bomb the U.S. but Titor, an American, said he was happy because they were taking out his enemies or taking out the bad guys or the corruption or something.


Edit- Oh. I guess we arent talking about Titor no more. Were we ever or was that just me?

Is that that "randomness" thing again?

a reply to: Shamrock6

So how does keeping a poor person behind bars purely because they cannot pay due to indigence constitute a substantial government interest?

You completely ignored the most recent precedent set by the case mentioned above where the Justice Department stated clearly the exact issue we are discussing. You are avoiding this (cognitive dissonance?) by focusing on older cases that focused on vague descriptions of "government interests".

How is it just and fair that people with a lot of money get to bail out regularly and escape pre-trial punishment and poor people are always facing pre-trial punishment?

Address the Justice Departments claims please, also explain why the court ruled in their favor and mandated new rules.

I just think you are grasping straws now to justify the immediate punishment of poor people.

a reply to: muzzleflash

So how does keeping a poor person behind bars purely because they cannot pay due to indigence constitute a substantial government interest?

If you commit a crime that results in a $50,000 bond because of the nature of the crime, the government is not obligated to release you simply because you can't afford the bond that is attached to the crime you committed. There is no presumptive right to rob a bank, get arrested, and then claim that because you're indigent you have to be ROR'd.

You completely ignored the most recent precedent set by the case mentioned above where the Justice Department stated clearly the exact issue we are discussing. You are avoiding this (cognitive dissonance?) by focusing on older cases that focused on vague descriptions of "government interests".

No, point of fact I'm not ignoring anything but rather you are. Had you actually read the case history cited in the article you linked, you would have learned that the appeals court threw out the district court's ruling and ruled in favor of the City of Calhoun. The DoJ filing an amicus brief doesn't mean diddly in this case. Furthermore, no precedent was set by the district court when it issued it's ruling because district courts can't set precedent. Only appellate courts and supreme courts can establish precedent. The appellate court in this case used precedent established by the Supreme Court in the cases I cited, plus a few others, to overturn the district court's ruling.

You call it "focusing on older cases" and I call it "focusing on the actual relevant case law and precedent that's still in place." You call it "focusing on older cases" and I call it "focusing on the decision issued two months ago by the appellate court in question instead of relying on an article over two years old and written before the case was ruled on."

How is it just and fair that people with a lot of money get to bail out regularly and escape pre-trial punishment and poor people are always facing pre-trial punishment?

Poor people always face pre-trial punishment, do they? Source please.

Address the Justice Departments claims please, also explain why the court ruled in their favor and mandated new rules.

The appellate court finds that argument presented in the case by Walker is without merit. That includes the DoJ amicus brief. The appellate court did NOT rule in the DoJ's favor, and in fact ruled that the requirements put in place by the district court overstepped their authority. There, it's addressed.

I just think you are grasping straws now

Yes, what with my citations of multiple court cases that are the current and relevant case law and actually reading the case that your own links are about, I'm totally grasping at straws.

to justify the immediate punishment of poor people.

I think you don't have an argument, period, and have decided that implying I think poor people should be kept in jail will somehow allow you to save face.

the hell is this thread?
where is the cosnpiracy? this should be moved to the chit chat forum