It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man jailed a month & counting for not stating full name.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Aakron
 


The radio presenter in the sound clip features in this kurfuffle with the judge .





Ian Freeman from nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live has been arrested while in court over a couch and jailed for 93 days.



A couch .....?



As you know if you’ve been reading this website for a while, the men and women calling themselves the “City of Keene” attacked me and my family because my tenants had a couch in their yard. I offered to move the couch if the complaining party (who was later revealed to be a city bureaucrat) would just come and talk to me like an adult, she refused, the government people continued to prosecute, and I continued to refuse to obey to see how far they would push it. It all culminated in their courtroom with me being thrown in jail on a sentence of 93 days - three days for the couch and 90 days on three charges of “contempt of court”



About Free Keane




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
It really depends on the state.

Some states will consider it an illegal act to withhold your name when asked for it, others won't.


Good info, although I don't think it's quite applicable to this case. In some states, you may refuse to give your name if simply questioned, but the issue with his name didn't come up until he was arrested on the other charge.

Once you are placed under arrest, I'm certain in all 50 states, you are required to give your name to the police. The Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, determined you don't have the right to refuse providing your name under the 5th.


[edit on 8-5-2009 by Schaden]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
You have a right to remain silent, but you don't have the right to withold giving them your name if you're arrested.


we do not have rights!! rights cannot be taken away. we have temporary privledges that can be modified or changed by courts and congress.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
This type of action by our courts is indefensible and is intolerable. Judges can and do jail people on a whim.Without benifit of a trial. Contempt of court! Where your rights interfere with the judges power play. Any time you are before a judge you are a loser.You are made subserviant,you must "PLEA" to the "HONERABLE JUDGE".

The courts in this country have amassed far to much power over the country as a whole. We have courts that in essence write laws,by preceedent. That undermine our Constitutional rights.

There is little justice in the law,just coercion and compromise.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phlegmi

I was arrested for DUI and when I was at the police station they wanted to draw my blood to get an accurate reading which I refused. The officer had 6 other officers walk into the room military style stomping their boots to scare me into the test I guess. I refused a second time and they held me down and took my blood anyway.

So no, you really cant refuse a test


Ok now Phlegmi, I'm going to have to respectfully call BS on that one. You have to sign a document giving them permission to draw blood. If this truly happened the way you said it did, then you have a beautiful opportunity for a law suit. Go for it!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Turns out this happened in New Hampshire, where it is indeed illegal to withhold one's identity when asked by police.

And has been stated, unfortunately, the SCOTUS has upheld this stupidity, stating the majority opinion that "providing one's name to police is an 'insignificant' act."

Source

Note in the example which Justices played along with this crap(mostly Conservatives).

Also note Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent.

I think the main issue with the Dodson case is whether or not one can refuse to verbally state one's name in a situation where one's identifying documents are already known/in possession of police.

Maybe we should demand that the SCOTUS go over the Constitution, line item by line item, and tell us exactly what we can and can't do as U.S. Citizens?

[edit on 5/8/2009 by The Nighthawk]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Oh I forgot that this is a conspiracy site
I have no reason to lie, also this happened in SoCal (Los Angeles area) so it was no small town department. It was back in 1995 so I think it's too late for a suit and what would be the point anyway.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Good Topic.


He probably could've been out of there in an hour if he did tell his name, or had his lawyer show up. Imo the law clearly crossed the line here, by having this man incarcerated for over a month!


Unacceptable.

Alteast have him appear in court, next day, a week MAXimum after being arrested, and let a judge decide. WTF?


Let's look at the facts. He was arrested for having a camera in a courtroom, not like he committed a violent offense, where punishment like this might serve justice, especially for criminal scumbags who make bail.

I admire this guy's courage, and how he stood his ground, and practiced his rights. Kudos.

I find myself usually on the other side of this argument, becasue criminals often times take advantage of our system, and it's the victim who gets the sh*t end of the stick.
Clearly not in this case. This is bullsh*t. And I'm glad for people like this guy. Seriously. I can't believe I'm just finding out about this now. No coverage. That pisses me off 2.

That's one of our fundamental rights as American citizens, to remain silent. Period.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
You have to give your name in court for the record.

He wouldn't do it. He is in jail until he complies. He cannot have a trial until he provides his name.


He has to acknowledge that he is the person being charged.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


you have the right to remain silent. Period. This includes giving your name, your birthday, your SSN, your favorite color, or what you ate for dinner last night. You don't have to open your mouth and utter a single sound, under any circumstances. This negates every statement you've made in this thread.

Sure, he could have given his name, and likely been released. I'm sure you would have taken this route, and would have been home in time for American Idol. However, his civil rights are apparently much more important to him, than yours are to you. It's people like him who are actually fighting for our freedom, and are the reason you have yours. Your freedom has nothing to do with our soldiers fighting in the middle east, and everything to do with people like Sam.

If you don't exercise your rights, you don't deserve them.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
He cannot have a trial until he provides his name.


How to you try a mute?

To address your statements, this is when the judge opens his mouth and says "let the record show..."



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Sure you do. Your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination doesn't have any "except in this case" clause, at least not that I've ever seen.


You're wrong. Giving the police your name isn't self-incrimination.


It is if they happen to be looking for YOU!

This case is crazy, I can't believe they are holding this guy for not stating his name. WTF kind of police state has Amerika become?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Where does it say you HAVE to give anyone your name? Also, if you are on the street and a cop asks you for ID, or name..you DON'T have to tell them jack!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by keeb333

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Sure you do. Your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination doesn't have any "except in this case" clause, at least not that I've ever seen.


You're wrong. Giving the police your name isn't self-incrimination.


It is if they happen to be looking for YOU!

This case is crazy, I can't believe they are holding this guy for not stating his name. WTF kind of police state has Amerika become?


Again, blame the SCOTUS.

Source

Not saying it's right, just that it's legal.

Seems to be the case more and more these days...



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by jd140
He cannot have a trial until he provides his name.


How to you try a mute?

To address your statements, this is when the judge opens his mouth and says "let the record show..."


I'm not going to argue it with you.

The guy is being a pain in the butt just for no reason other then being a pain in the butt. Their is no reason at all for him not to give his name.

You show me a legal reason why he won't give his name and then there might be an arguement.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Well put Unit541. I couldn't agree more.

star.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
You show me a legal reason why he won't give his name and then there might be an arguement.


How about the fact that he's not legally required to do so. The court is strong arming him, and he refuses to be strong armed. Simple as that. What's the official charge? What is the maximum punishment for this charge? There are plenty of actual offenses that are much more detrimental to society at large than not stating your name, that carry maximum punishments of fines less than $100, and no jail time.

He is simply exercising his right to remain silent. Period, end of story, no argument needed. Unless of course you want to argue the pros and cons of being a sheep vs a free man.

Just wait. Revisit this case in another month or two, after the ACLU has had a go at this judge. Even in a justice (
) system as corrupt as ours, this judge has no legal right to incarcerate this man, and he's going to regret his actions in the near future. At the very best, it's a frivolous use of the contempt of court charge.

So, why don't you walk your talk, and show me how this man was legally required to give his name.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Unit541]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by jd140
He cannot have a trial until he provides his name.


How to you try a mute?

To address your statements, this is when the judge opens his mouth and says "let the record show..."


I'm not going to argue it with you.

The guy is being a pain in the butt just for no reason other then being a pain in the butt. Their is no reason at all for him not to give his name.

You show me a legal reason why he won't give his name and then there might be an arguement.


The right to remain silent is a legal protection given to people undergoing police interrogation or trial. The law is recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

The right covers a number of issues centered around the right to refuse to answer questions. This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to not answer any questions. The right usually includes the provision that adverse comment or inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury about the refusal to answer questions before or during a trial or hearing.

Edit: That was from Wiki, by the way

[edit on 8/5/2009 by xxpigxx]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by jd140
You show me a legal reason why he won't give his name and then there might be an arguement.


How about the fact that he's not legally required to do so. The court is strong arming him, and he refuses to be strong armed. Simple as that. What's the official charge? What is the maximum punishment for this charge? There are plenty of actual offenses that are much more detrimental to society at large than not stating your name, that carry maximum punishments of fines less than $100, and no jail time.

He is simply exercising his right to remain silent. Period, end of story, no argument needed. Unless of course you want to argue the pros and cons of being a sheep vs a free man.

Just wait. Revisit this case in another month or two, after the ACLU has had a go at this judge. Even in a justice (
) system as corrupt as ours, this judge has no legal right to incarcerate this man, and he's going to regret his actions in the near future. At the very best, it's a frivolous use of the contempt of court charge.

So, why don't you walk your talk, and show me how this man was legally required to give his name.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Unit541]


Okay, you know what? Why don't you look at my posts above, and the source I cited, and then get back to us?

The Supreme Court has stated you have to give your name. Again, I'm not saying I agree with their decision, and I'm sure as Hell not saying it's right. I'm just saying the decision has been made by the top legal authority in the Land, and while in my opinion (probably in the majority on this one) it's wrong, it is binding, mandatory authority.

Instead of flailing around complaining like a child about it, take a look at the reality of it, including the source material, and maybe we should discuss what it would take to get that decision reversed.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

How about the fact that he's not legally required to do so.


Where this guys lives, he IS required to do so! Plain and simple.

They want to get the law changed, let them go through the legal process.

It's cut and dry, he can move to another state, get the law changed in his state, or stop bein a prepubescent crybaby who is throwin a "I want some media attention" tantrum.

Which, it seems you support....and I find incredibly childish, unnecessary, and definitely insignificant.


AB1

[edit on 8-5-2009 by alphabetaone]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join